Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"   (salon.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, making excuses, New York City Police Department  
•       •       •

11037 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Sep 2013 at 3:27 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



522 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-17 08:18:52 PM  
Salon fail. Pearl MS was stopped by an Asst principal
 
2013-09-17 08:26:30 PM  

SauronWasFramed: Salon fail. Pearl MS was stopped by an Asst principal


The U.S. Army Reserve Commander assistant principal?
 
2013-09-17 08:27:31 PM  
Well, that's because guns aren't allowed in areas where mass shootings occur.  It's the law.  Guns, outlaws, etc. whatever.
 
2013-09-17 08:31:05 PM  
That is simply untrue.

The Clackamas Town Center shooting was stopped by an armed civilian. He however didn't shoot the gunman, the criminal fled after seeing the armed citizen.
Joseph Zamudio an armed citizen helped subdue the murderer in the Tucson shooting in which Representative Giffords was injured.

Those are the first two I could think of off the top of my head.
 
2013-09-17 08:34:31 PM  
Not a single house burned down when an extinguisher was used to put out a small kitchen fire. That follows the same logic. If an armed citizen stops a criminal before we have a mass shooting then we don't have a mass shooting. Thousands of times each month lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

I know Salon was the first online publication with a paywall. Do they still have it. I'm surprised they still exist. I thought it was about women's hair for the longest time.
 
2013-09-17 08:35:02 PM  
With two mass shootings at military installations, it's clear that we need to arm our soldiers.
 
2013-09-17 08:35:03 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-17 08:36:26 PM  

feckingmorons: Joseph Zamudio an armed citizen helped subdue the murderer in the Tucson shooting in which Representative Giffords was injured.


You might want to refresh your recollection on what this guy did or didn't do with his gun.
 
2013-09-17 08:36:34 PM  
I was armed when someone asked me for directions. I was friendly and gave him excellent directions. Little did I know that had I did things a little differently -that guy would have gone on a shooting rampage.
 
2013-09-17 08:39:08 PM  

kronicfeld: feckingmorons: Joseph Zamudio an armed citizen helped subdue the murderer in the Tucson shooting in which Representative Giffords was injured.

You might want to refresh your recollection on what this guy did or didn't do with his gun.


Just taking it out prevented hundreds, nay thousands from dying.  That is the awesome power of the gun.
 
2013-09-17 08:43:41 PM  

feckingmorons: Not a single house burned down when an extinguisher was used to put out a small kitchen fire. That follows the same logic.


That's not "logic". That's "retarded grasping". Fire starts in a house. Person sprays it with fire extinguisher. Problem solved. The analogous situation would be person starts shooting the place up, Heroic Armed Republican Citizen then shoots maniac, problem solved. There seems to be a lack of cases of the latter happening.

feckingmorons: If an armed citizen stops a criminal before we have a mass shooting then we don't have a mass shooting.


Oh boy. Yes, please keep going in that direction. Double down.

feckingmorons: Thousands of times each month lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.


[citation needed]
 
2013-09-17 08:48:12 PM  

SauronWasFramed: Salon fail.


But then, you repeat yourself.
 
2013-09-17 08:50:27 PM  

kronicfeld: feckingmorons: Joseph Zamudio an armed citizen helped subdue the murderer in the Tucson shooting in which Representative Giffords was injured.

You might want to refresh your recollection on what this guy did or didn't do with his gun.


He didn't shoot anyone. He was armed, when he wrestled with others for the weapon used to shoot everyone. You might want to read the headline.
 
2013-09-17 08:51:13 PM  
The fantasy -- that if YOU had been there with your heroic gun, you would have shot the killer and saved everyone -- is for the moment still a fantasy.
 
2013-09-17 08:52:32 PM  

kronicfeld: SauronWasFramed: Salon fail. Pearl MS was stopped by an Asst principal

The U.S. Army Reserve Commander assistant principal?




The guy was not in uniform, was he. I suppose if you have to lie like Mother Jones did, facts don't matter.

Nor does the fact that he had to sprint to his car that was parked off campus. Why? Because he would have been arrested for doing so.

As it stands, he had to sprint back and stopped the shooter while he was reloading.

/realizes mother jones has to stretch their story by distorting the facts
 
2013-09-17 08:55:26 PM  

feckingmorons: He didn't shoot anyone. He was armed, when he wrestled with others for the weapon used to shoot everyone. You might want to read the headline.


Yes, you are literally correct, given the particular phrasing of the headline: he was an armed civilian who was partially involved in subduing the shooter. Of course, given that the gun in his pocket had no role whatsoever in what transpired, his being armed was utterly meaningless. His being armed had as much relevance as his gender, race, or sexual orientation: none.
 
2013-09-17 08:55:30 PM  
The information is that guns are used defensively a lot more than they are used to kill. No idea if showing a gun stopped a mass shooting. Go prove some other negatives Salon.
 
2013-09-17 08:56:24 PM  

SauronWasFramed: The guy was not in uniform, was he.


How heavy are those goalposts? And what does Mother Jones have to do with anything?
 
2013-09-17 08:59:28 PM  

I_C_Weener: The information is that guns are used defensively a lot more than they are used to kill. No idea if showing a gun stopped a mass shooting. Go prove some other negatives Salon.


Is it true that guns are used defensively more often than to commit homicide?

/not trolling
 
2013-09-17 08:59:50 PM  
Folks, U.S. citizens love their guns and love violence.  Until the culture changes you're pissing into the wind.
 
2013-09-17 09:04:08 PM  

2wolves: Folks, U.S. citizens love their guns and love violence.  Until the culture changes you're pissing into the wind.


Your Honor, I'd like to enter this into the record as Exhibit A:

i42.tinypic.com
 
2013-09-17 09:11:08 PM  

b2theory: I_C_Weener: The information is that guns are used defensively a lot more than they are used to kill. No idea if showing a gun stopped a mass shooting. Go prove some other negatives Salon.

Is it true that guns are used defensively more often than to commit homicide?

/not trolling


The most conservstive estimates are around 100,000 - 200,000 uses per year. The NRA number is more like 1 million. What constitutes defensive gun use is determined differently in the various studies. Stuff like showed a holstered gun or yelling that you have a gun counts in some studies but not in others. But the studies are almost all from around the era of the Assault Weapons ban.

But nearly every week there is some story of a robbery or home invasion being stopped or partially stopped by defensive gun use.
 
2013-09-17 09:11:49 PM  

Cagey B: That's not "logic". That's "retarded grasping". Fire starts in a house. Person sprays it with fire extinguisher. Problem solved. The analogous situation would be person starts shooting the place up, Heroic Armed Republican Citizen then shoots maniac, problem solved. There seems to be a lack of cases of the latter happening.


Here you go then, if we can assume all small kitchen fires burn a house down we can also assume that all people who shoot other people will become mass murderers by shooting many people during one crime spree. Here are a few thousand cases of an armed citizen stopping an armed criminal before they could graduate to mass murderer.

I carry a gun because I can. I also carry it because it annoys people who want to deny me that right.

Cagey B: feckingmorons: If an armed citizen stops a criminal before we have a mass shooting then we don't have a mass shooting.Oh boy. Yes, please keep going in that direction. Double down.


If you stop a wildfire with a hose it also won't burn up a subdivision.

Cagey B: feckingmorons: Thousands of times each month lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.[citation needed]


The citations are linked above.

You may also be interested in an interview with Dr. Gary Kleck [FSU department of Criminal Justice] in which he notes private guns stop crimes 2,500,000 times a year in the US.

Even Hemenway's attempt to discredit Kleck's study shows that there are hundreds of thousands of civilian uses of firearms to prevent crime every year, even if we accept every possible statistical error that could be made. Hemenway is an economist not a criminologist.

I've provided both sides of the coin and they both support my assertion. If you want more I can provide them, but I'm not doing your homework for you.
 
2013-09-17 09:12:00 PM  
Still relevant

www.ieet.org

/i get called a gun grabber all the time because i'm okay with universal background checks
//we're screwed
 
2013-09-17 09:12:52 PM  

2wolves: Folks, U.S. citizens love their guns and love violence.  Until the culture changes you're pissing into the wind.


Left got ObamaCare, the Right got their guns

I guess it all works out in the end

/Its a joke
 
2013-09-17 09:14:00 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: I was armed when someone asked me for directions. I was friendly and gave him excellent directions. Little did I know that had I did things a little differently -that guy would have gone on a shooting rampage.


I have almost never been armed when out in public. The lives I could have saved have left me with no will to live. Thank goodness I have a gun.
 
2013-09-17 09:14:07 PM  

2wolves: Folks, U.S. citizens love their guns and love violence.  Until the culture changes you're pissing into the wind.


I also second this observation.

/Too many Americans love their guns too much.
//Around here, people talk about their guns more than Alabama football at times.
 
2013-09-17 09:16:43 PM  

kronicfeld: feckingmorons: He didn't shoot anyone. He was armed, when he wrestled with others for the weapon used to shoot everyone. You might want to read the headline.

Yes, you are literally correct, given the particular phrasing of the headline: he was an armed civilian who was partially involved in subduing the shooter. Of course, given that the gun in his pocket had no role whatsoever in what transpired, his being armed was utterly meaningless. His being armed had as much relevance as his gender, race, or sexual orientation: none.


He was leaving the grocery and ran towards the gunfire. He felt equipped to help someone being robbed, or assaulted or shot because he was on a level playing field. If he just had a carton of eggs and a pack of smokes he probably wouldn't have done that. While he may sound like an internet tough guy in his interview, we can't deny that he ran from the safety of the store to where people were being shot. He put himself in harm's way. Would you do that?

Yes, I am literally correct. My facts are correct, my assertion is valid and supported by evidence. Is there some better way to be correct?
 
2013-09-17 09:20:19 PM  
Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed. Can you make us a case that any mass shooting was made worse by an armed civilian? And don't say the shooter dumbass
 
2013-09-17 09:22:45 PM  

Chariset: The fantasy -- that if YOU had been there with your heroic gun, you would have shot the killer and saved everyone -- is for the moment still a fantasy.


If I were there with my gun I would have herded people to shelter unless there was absolutely no other recourse but to shoot the criminal. I'm not keen on shooting people.

I am not the police. I don't have an obligation to help others (frankly the police don't have an obligation to help you either [Warren v. District of Columbia]). I would certainly hope I would, I sure think I would, however I carry a gun to protect myself an my family. Not to protect the world from lunatics who are intent on murdering people.

If the police and the marines can't protect people from crazed murderers I'm not going to be a lot of help to anyone else.

10 minutes for the police to arrive and three hours to render the criminal incapable of killing anyone else. I'll keep my gun for those 10 minutes while we're waiting for the cops.  I don't depend on the government for my safety, you can if you want to. We see how well that worked.
 
2013-09-17 09:28:18 PM  
What a coincidence - not a single mass shooting was stopped by gun control laws.
 
2013-09-17 09:29:48 PM  

NickelP: Can you make us a case that any mass shooting was made worse by an armed civilian?


I'm pretty sure you can find quite a few cases of people's weapons being used against them and inflicting even more carnage. Not saying that's a case against self defense, but you're making a pretty stupid statement.

Not that this whole debate hasn't be reduced to absurdity already.

It's like watching crippled kids fight.
 
2013-09-17 09:31:25 PM  

2wolves: Folks, U.S. citizens love their guns and love violence.  Until the culture changes you're pissing into the wind.


I don't carry a gun in Ireland because there is little gun crime there. I would venture that a similar percentage of Irish people own guns as in the US, the vast majority of them are shotguns. The same percentage of the population are armed, but Ireland doesn't have a culture of violence like we do in the US. Ireland has a culture that respects life. In Ireland there were 54 murders (not just gun related) in 2012. In Chicago there were that many gun crimes last month.

When the criminals stop murdering people in the US, I'll stop carrying a gun. Until then, the next time someone shoots at me I want to be able to shoot back.
 
2013-09-17 09:31:28 PM  

Triumph: What a coincidence - not a single mass shooting was stopped by gun control laws.


The most conservative estimates are around 100,000 - 200,000 preventions per year. The Brady Foundation number is more like 1 million.
 
2013-09-17 09:33:23 PM  

DoctorCal: Triumph: What a coincidence - not a single mass shooting was stopped by gun control laws.

The most conservative estimates are around 100,000 - 200,000 preventions per year. The Brady Foundation number is more like 1 million.


I think it is twenty billion. I can make up estimates of things that never happened just as well as anyone else.

What is the methodology of making up numbers of things that don't happen?
 
2013-09-17 09:33:26 PM  

NickelP: Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed. Can you make us a case that any mass shooting was made worse by an armed civilian? And don't say the shooter dumbass


Don't know about a civilian, but it looks like the Navy Yard shooter used at least one (and maybe two) guns that he took after shooting armed guards at the start of his rampage.
 
2013-09-17 09:34:16 PM  

NewportBarGuy: NickelP: Can you make us a case that any mass shooting was made worse by an armed civilian?

I'm pretty sure you can find quite a few cases of people's weapons being used against them and inflicting even more carnage. Not saying that's a case against self defense, but you're making a pretty stupid statement.

Not that this whole debate hasn't be reduced to absurdity already.

It's like watching crippled kids fight.


That's a risk one takes. Maybe a good one, maybe a bad one, but its pretty much theirs to take.

wtf mods. If I tossed this into the tfd queue id prob get it deleted. Way to troll.
 
2013-09-17 09:34:39 PM  

feckingmorons: That is simply untrue.

The Clackamas Town Center shooting was stopped by an armed civilian. He however didn't shoot the gunman, the criminal fled after seeing the armed citizen.
Joseph Zamudio an armed citizen helped subdue the murderer in the Tucson shooting in which Representative Giffords was injured.

Those are the first two I could think of off the top of my head.


There was also the loony religion of peace guy that started shooting up the Israeli airline (El Al ?) ticket booth at LAX. He got a few shots off and was immediately blasted dead by private security.
 
2013-09-17 09:35:16 PM  

feckingmorons: DoctorCal: Triumph: What a coincidence - not a single mass shooting was stopped by gun control laws.

The most conservative estimates are around 100,000 - 200,000 preventions per year. The Brady Foundation number is more like 1 million.

I think it is twenty billion. I can make up estimates of things that never happened just as well as anyone else.

What is the methodology of making up numbers of things that don't happen?


It's determined differently in different studies.
 
2013-09-17 09:41:07 PM  

feckingmorons: DoctorCal: Triumph: What a coincidence - not a single mass shooting was stopped by gun control laws.

The most conservative estimates are around 100,000 - 200,000 preventions per year. The Brady Foundation number is more like 1 million.

I think it is twenty billion. I can make up estimates of things that never happened just as well as anyone else.

What is the methodology of making up numbers of things that don't happen?


Like crimes that don't happen because a civilian had a gun?
 
2013-09-17 09:41:27 PM  

DoctorCal: What is the methodology of making up numbers of things that don't happen?

It's determined differently in different studies.


Is it a crime against women or a minority by a white male the numbers are inflated by a factor of 1732%
 
2013-09-17 09:44:03 PM  

NickelP: That's a risk one takes. Maybe a good one, maybe a bad one, but its pretty much theirs to take.


I'd totally agree with that. I'm pro CCW and pro-gun, to the point of mandating all sales go through an FFL. Period. No exceptions. For a CCW you need to have a clean mental health record and clear NCIC.

Anyone who is legally allowed to own and carry should have that right. I'm fine with that.

But, we have a glitch in the Matrix and we have to fix it. Mental Health records specifically. We have got to figure out a way to flag those purchases and prevent the sale. Call it a 7-10 day hold. Don't disclose any information to the seller, just tell them that the sale is denied pending review.

We went to the f*cking moon. I think we can figure something out.
 
2013-09-17 09:44:56 PM  

feckingmorons: 2wolves: Folks, U.S. citizens love their guns and love violence.  Until the culture changes you're pissing into the wind.

I don't carry a gun in Ireland because there is little gun crime there. I would venture that a similar percentage of Irish people own guns as in the US, the vast majority of them are shotguns. The same percentage of the population are armed, but Ireland doesn't have a culture of violence like we do in the US. Ireland has a culture that respects life. In Ireland there were 54 murders (not just gun related) in 2012. In Chicago there were that many gun crimes last month.

When the criminals stop murdering people in the US, I'll stop carrying a gun. Until then, the next time someone shoots at me I want to be able to shoot back.


Thank you for your rather long form agreement.
 
2013-09-17 09:47:17 PM  

NewportBarGuy: NickelP: That's a risk one takes. Maybe a good one, maybe a bad one, but its pretty much theirs to take.

I'd totally agree with that. I'm pro CCW and pro-gun, to the point of mandating all sales go through an FFL. Period. No exceptions. For a CCW you need to have a clean mental health record and clear NCIC.

Anyone who is legally allowed to own and carry should have that right. I'm fine with that.

But, we have a glitch in the Matrix and we have to fix it. Mental Health records specifically. We have got to figure out a way to flag those purchases and prevent the sale. Call it a 7-10 day hold. Don't disclose any information to the seller, just tell them that the sale is denied pending review.

We went to the f*cking moon. I think we can figure something out.


I'm not against that. You can probably legitly blame the pro gun folks, but at the moment most mental health budgets are getting decimated. If you can't treat folks who need help I don't see how we are going to fund them to keep guns from them.
 
2013-09-17 09:48:43 PM  
The tautology of the argument.. ah.

Define the terms to win the argument. Exclude anything that busts the general idea because it's outside the definition.

b2theory: Is it true that guns are used defensively more often than to commit homicide?

/not trolling


The purpose of a defensive gun use is to stop a crime. Not kill someone. A lot of statistics try and prove guns aren't used defensively by citing the lack of homicides by defensive gun uses. But yes, the estimation puts defensive gun uses higher than homicides.
 
2013-09-17 09:49:49 PM  

NewportBarGuy: NickelP: That's a risk one takes. Maybe a good one, maybe a bad one, but its pretty much theirs to take.

I'd totally agree with that. I'm pro CCW and pro-gun, to the point of mandating all sales go through an FFL. Period. No exceptions. For a CCW you need to have a clean mental health record and clear NCIC.

Anyone who is legally allowed to own and carry should have that right. I'm fine with that.

But, we have a glitch in the Matrix and we have to fix it. Mental Health records specifically. We have got to figure out a way to flag those purchases and prevent the sale. Call it a 7-10 day hold. Don't disclose any information to the seller, just tell them that the sale is denied pending review.

We went to the f*cking moon. I think we can figure something out.


OH MY GOD!!1!  GUN GRABBER!!  WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY I HAVE TO WAIT!!  I HAVE A RIGHT TO ANY FIREARM NOW NOW NOW!!!

As long as DC is afraid of a lobbying group that takes that position, we're screwed.
 
2013-09-17 09:51:57 PM  
I'm not sure you could tell.
 
2013-09-17 09:53:05 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: feckingmorons: DoctorCal: Triumph: What a coincidence - not a single mass shooting was stopped by gun control laws.

The most conservative estimates are around 100,000 - 200,000 preventions per year. The Brady Foundation number is more like 1 million.

I think it is twenty billion. I can make up estimates of things that never happened just as well as anyone else.

What is the methodology of making up numbers of things that don't happen?

Like crimes that don't happen because a civilian had a gun?


I don't see anyone making up that particular metric. I see plenty of people who were in the midst of the commission of a crime and used a firearm defend themselves or their family. See Also.
 
2013-09-17 09:54:21 PM  

NewportBarGuy: NickelP: That's a risk one takes. Maybe a good one, maybe a bad one, but its pretty much theirs to take.

I'd totally agree with that. I'm pro CCW and pro-gun, to the point of mandating all sales go through an FFL. Period. No exceptions. For a CCW you need to have a clean mental health record and clear NCIC.

Anyone who is legally allowed to own and carry should have that right. I'm fine with that.

But, we have a glitch in the Matrix and we have to fix it. Mental Health records specifically. We have got to figure out a way to flag those purchases and prevent the sale. Call it a 7-10 day hold. Don't disclose any information to the seller, just tell them that the sale is denied pending review.

We went to the f*cking moon. I think we can figure something out.


Also not that I think any of that is a bad idea, because I ddon't, but would it of prevented any mass shooting you can think of?
 
2013-09-17 09:54:58 PM  

NickelP: Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed.


Yeah.  It's usually the shooter killing himself.
 
2013-09-17 09:56:00 PM  

BizarreMan: DoctorCal: What is the methodology of making up numbers of things that don't happen?

It's determined differently in different studies.

Is it a crime against women or a minority by a white male the numbers are inflated by a factor of 1732%


What if it is a leap year?
 
2013-09-17 10:00:18 PM  

Mentat: NickelP: Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed.

Yeah.  It's usually the shooter killing himself.


Id still like to hear one made worse by an armed civilian. Several times they have helped are noted.
 
2013-09-17 10:02:56 PM  

NickelP: Id still like to hear one made worse by an armed civilian. Several times they have helped are noted.


Can armed civilians do any worse than the NYPD and LAPD?
 
2013-09-17 10:02:58 PM  

NickelP: Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed. Can you make us a case that any mass shooting was made worse by an armed civilian? And don't say the shooter dumbass


Wait wait wait. Hasn't just about every mass shooting ended by the shooter offing himself?
 
2013-09-17 10:05:11 PM  

BizarreMan: NickelP: Id still like to hear one made worse by an armed civilian. Several times they have helped are noted.

Can armed civilians do any worse than the NYPD and LAPD?


I'm pretty sure they could, but only if they were the actual crazy shooters.
 
2013-09-17 10:05:57 PM  

NickelP: Also not that I think any of that is a bad idea, because I ddon't, but would it of prevented any mass shooting you can think of?


Yes.

If we had a fully integrated computer system of all 50 states with regard to crimes, pending charges, and mental health, you could have a pretty clear determination on whether a sale should go through. It would have stopped this guy if his VA mental health record popped a red flag. A system like that could have stopped a metric sh*t ton of crimes and suicides.
 
2013-09-17 10:06:04 PM  

dr_blasto: NickelP: Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed. Can you make us a case that any mass shooting was made worse by an armed civilian? And don't say the shooter dumbass

Wait wait wait. Hasn't just about every mass shooting ended by the shooter offing himself?


Not all by far. Boston, the theatre ones, etc are ended with armed folks. Not to mention I find it hard to believe the shooters all said 'oh hell I'm done killing. Time to off myself'. The fact they were encased by armed folks who'd kill or arrest them had a bit to do with it I'm sure.
 
2013-09-17 10:06:10 PM  
I just know that I can sleep better at night knowing that every time one of these events happens, people can become more entrenched and polarized in their views on the subject, thus ensuring nothing will change.  So at least those deaths aren't in vain.
 
2013-09-17 10:07:33 PM  

dr_blasto: NickelP: Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed. Can you make us a case that any mass shooting was made worse by an armed civilian? And don't say the shooter dumbass

Wait wait wait. Hasn't just about every mass shooting ended by the shooter offing himself?


Usually moments after someone with a weapon arrives.
 
2013-09-17 10:07:39 PM  

NewportBarGuy: NickelP: That's a risk one takes. Maybe a good one, maybe a bad one, but its pretty much theirs to take.

I'd totally agree with that. I'm pro CCW and pro-gun, to the point of mandating all sales go through an FFL. Period. No exceptions. For a CCW you need to have a clean mental health record and clear NCIC.

Anyone who is legally allowed to own and carry should have that right. I'm fine with that.

But, we have a glitch in the Matrix and we have to fix it. Mental Health records specifically. We have got to figure out a way to flag those purchases and prevent the sale. Call it a 7-10 day hold. Don't disclose any information to the seller, just tell them that the sale is denied pending review.

We went to the f*cking moon. I think we can figure something out.


Just before the Virginia Tech shooting, in which the murderer was so mentally ill that he should not own a gun, 22 states were reporting disqualified persons to the NCIC. The National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act was enacted to encourage states to meet their responsibilities about reporting those disqualified due to commitment or guardianships.

That has obviously failed to be of any significant help. Republican Senator Graham introduced the NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013 with bipartisan supporting co-sponsors. It has of course gone nowhere because our elected legislators are do nothing imbeciles.

This is an exceptionally good Bill, it clarifies exactly who must be reported as disqualified as well as including protections for people who may have previously been disqualified but because their medical problems have improved that they no longer present any danger from unjust disqualification.

We heard a lot of BS coming out of Washington, but this bill should have been pushed through despite the political posturing. It is a short Bill, read it and see if you don't agree with everything in it. Republicans, Democrats, Independents... who could possibly object to this?

Yet it will languish in committee and die.
 
2013-09-17 10:09:01 PM  

BizarreMan: NickelP: Id still like to hear one made worse by an armed civilian. Several times they have helped are noted.

Can armed civilians do any worse than the NYPD and LAPD?



No, many of them live in states that limit how many bullets you can have in your gun. Those limits don't apply to police so police can shoot unarmed accident victims, and bystanders with more bullets before having to reload.
 
2013-09-17 10:10:47 PM  

NewportBarGuy: NickelP: Also not that I think any of that is a bad idea, because I ddon't, but would it of prevented any mass shooting you can think of?

Yes.

If we had a fully integrated computer system of all 50 states with regard to crimes, pending charges, and mental health, you could have a pretty clear determination on whether a sale should go through. It would have stopped this guy if his VA mental health record popped a red flag. A system like that could have stopped a metric sh*t ton of crimes and suicides.


What is the cutoff though? I will plead ignorance to this one being so recent but aren't his issues a decade old? If the plan is to stop anyone who has had psych help in the last 10 years from owning a gun that will be a rough sell.
 
2013-09-17 10:12:34 PM  

NewportBarGuy: NickelP: Also not that I think any of that is a bad idea, because I ddon't, but would it of prevented any mass shooting you can think of?

Yes.

If we had a fully integrated computer system of all 50 states with regard to crimes, pending charges, and mental health, you could have a pretty clear determination on whether a sale should go through. It would have stopped this guy if his VA mental health record popped a red flag. A system like that could have stopped a metric sh*t ton of crimes and suicides.


There is such a system the NICS. States simply don't do what they should do to get mental health disqualifications in there. You're completely right that it could have stopped many murders and suicides.

The government has failed us yet again. It simply amazes me that people continue to turn to the government to help them.
 
2013-09-17 10:14:02 PM  

feckingmorons: NewportBarGuy: NickelP: Also not that I think any of that is a bad idea, because I ddon't, but would it of prevented any mass shooting you can think of?

Yes.

If we had a fully integrated computer system of all 50 states with regard to crimes, pending charges, and mental health, you could have a pretty clear determination on whether a sale should go through. It would have stopped this guy if his VA mental health record popped a red flag. A system like that could have stopped a metric sh*t ton of crimes and suicides.

There is such a system the NICS. States simply don't do what they should do to get mental health disqualifications in there. You're completely right that it could have stopped many murders and suicides.

The government has failed us yet again. It simply amazes me that people continue to turn to the government to help them.


Maybe they need to fund shiat instead of dumping it on locals who are trying to figure out how many fire fighters and police officers they need to fire to make their budget?
 
2013-09-17 10:17:20 PM  

feckingmorons: NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013


feckingmorons: Yet it will languish in committee and die.


It does not determine, adequately, when someone who is determined to have a mental illness is once again cleared to own a firearm. To me, that's a NO vote.

I like it, but it needs tweaking.
 
2013-09-17 10:18:20 PM  
I don't normally buy into their neocon foreign policy derp, but in this case The Weekly Standard has a good rebuttal of the Mother Jones piece TFA is based on.

In this case, the Weekly Standard is right. The original mother jones study was flawed because it considered only incidents where more than 4 people died, and not every incident where some crazy with a gun begins firing at people in a public space.

Salon has picked up the derp to push the agenda.
 
2013-09-17 10:19:16 PM  

kronicfeld: SauronWasFramed: The guy was not in uniform, was he.

How heavy are those goalposts? And what does Mother Jones have to do with anything?


You didn't read the article, did you?
 
2013-09-17 10:19:50 PM  

NickelP: dr_blasto: NickelP: Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed. Can you make us a case that any mass shooting was made worse by an armed civilian? And don't say the shooter dumbass

Wait wait wait. Hasn't just about every mass shooting ended by the shooter offing himself?

Not all by far. Boston, the theatre ones, etc are ended with armed folks. Not to mention I find it hard to believe the shooters all said 'oh hell I'm done killing. Time to off myself'. The fact they were encased by armed folks who'd kill or arrest them had a bit to do with it I'm sure.


Boston wasn't a shooter thing. The aurora guy just stopped and wandered off.

Now, given just how crazy you've got to be in order to get all shooty, it wouldn't surprise me if they did just check out like that. They're farking crazy, you know. What I've never seen, though, is a civilian interdicting in an ongoing shooting and dropping the nutter with thier carry weapon.

I don't think that matters much. It doesn't matter to me at least. Probably worth far more to figure out what the fark has caused the crazy increase in this type of shooting.
 
2013-09-17 10:20:08 PM  

feckingmorons: The government has failed us yet again. It simply amazes me that people continue to turn to the government to help them.


There is no other alternative. We make it work for us or we fail as a society. Or, we could hire a private company to do it for 10X the cost.
 
2013-09-17 10:21:15 PM  

Elegy: I don't normally buy into their neocon foreign policy derp, but in this case The Weekly Standard has a good rebuttal of the Mother Jones piece TFA is based on.

In this case, the Weekly Standard is right. The original mother jones study was flawed because it considered only incidents where more than 4 people died, and not every incident where some crazy with a gun begins firing at people in a public space.

Salon has picked up the derp to push the agenda.


The headline does say "mass shooting". Now I'm having trouble keeping this straight. What, *exactly*, qualifies as a "mass shooting", again? Seems like it was at least 15 dead at some point this summer.
 
2013-09-17 10:23:21 PM  

NewportBarGuy: feckingmorons: The government has failed us yet again. It simply amazes me that people continue to turn to the government to help them.

There is no other alternative. We make it work for us or we fail as a society. Or, we could hire a private company to do it for 10X the cost.


Its the worst argument for this stuff. 'The gov isn't funded enough to handle stuff and is farking up! We should defend them more!'

letlet's look at why their are problems and fix them instead of giving up
 
2013-09-17 10:24:18 PM  
Should say defend sorry auto correct on my phone butchers everything
 
2013-09-17 10:24:58 PM  

NickelP: NewportBarGuy: NickelP: Also not that I think any of that is a bad idea, because I ddon't, but would it of prevented any mass shooting you can think of?

Yes.

If we had a fully integrated computer system of all 50 states with regard to crimes, pending charges, and mental health, you could have a pretty clear determination on whether a sale should go through. It would have stopped this guy if his VA mental health record popped a red flag. A system like that could have stopped a metric sh*t ton of crimes and suicides.

What is the cutoff though? I will plead ignorance to this one being so recent but aren't his issues a decade old? If the plan is to stop anyone who has had psych help in the last 10 years from owning a gun that will be a rough sell.


Not at all, a giant majority of the people with mental health problems would not be disqualified. Only those declared incompetent, involuntarily hospitalized (and not better) or persons similarly situated. If you look at a 4473 form it is question 11f.

If Bob down the street takes an antidepressant prescribed by his psychiatrist he is fine. If he checks himself into the hospital for depression he is still fine. If the county goes before a judge because they think he is a danger, and the judge is convinced he is a danger and that he won't get mental health treatment, then he can't buy a gun.

Oh, and anyone that lives in a medical marijuana or personal use marijuana state that uses marijuana is prohibited from buying a gun. Sorry pothead.
 
2013-09-17 10:26:10 PM  

NickelP: Should say defend sorry auto correct on my phone butchers everything


Defund jesus droid that is a farken word
 
2013-09-17 10:27:22 PM  

NickelP: NewportBarGuy: NickelP: Also not that I think any of that is a bad idea, because I ddon't, but would it of prevented any mass shooting you can think of?

Yes.

If we had a fully integrated computer system of all 50 states with regard to crimes, pending charges, and mental health, you could have a pretty clear determination on whether a sale should go through. It would have stopped this guy if his VA mental health record popped a red flag. A system like that could have stopped a metric sh*t ton of crimes and suicides.

What is the cutoff though? I will plead ignorance to this one being so recent but aren't his issues a decade old? If the plan is to stop anyone who has had psych help in the last 10 years from owning a gun that will be a rough sell.


Or it will make gun-owning crazy people who really ought to get help avoid it in order to not lose their guns.
 
2013-09-17 10:28:05 PM  

SauronWasFramed: Salon fail. Pearl MS was stopped by an Asst principal


Let's not bring the Germans into this.
 
2013-09-17 10:28:36 PM  

feckingmorons: NickelP: NewportBarGuy: NickelP: Also not that I think any of that is a bad idea, because I ddon't, but would it of prevented any mass shooting you can think of?

Yes.

If we had a fully integrated computer system of all 50 states with regard to crimes, pending charges, and mental health, you could have a pretty clear determination on whether a sale should go through. It would have stopped this guy if his VA mental health record popped a red flag. A system like that could have stopped a metric sh*t ton of crimes and suicides.

What is the cutoff though? I will plead ignorance to this one being so recent but aren't his issues a decade old? If the plan is to stop anyone who has had psych help in the last 10 years from owning a gun that will be a rough sell.

Not at all, a giant majority of the people with mental health problems would not be disqualified. Only those declared incompetent, involuntarily hospitalized (and not better) or persons similarly situated. If you look at a 4473 form it is question 11f.

If Bob down the street takes an antidepressant prescribed by his psychiatrist he is fine. If he checks himself into the hospital for depression he is still fine. If the county goes before a judge because they think he is a danger, and the judge is convinced he is a danger and that he won't get mental health treatment, then he can't buy a gun.

Oh, and anyone that lives in a medical marijuana or personal use marijuana state that uses marijuana is prohibited from buying a gun. Sorry pothead.


I hope you are joking about the last part I can't read it right now. Which shooters in mass murders over the last 5 years who legally purchased their own guns would have been stopped by that bill?
 
2013-09-17 10:29:23 PM  
Bullfarking shiat Salon. Here's 9 of them since 1997
 
2013-09-17 10:29:46 PM  

feckingmorons: If he checks himself into the hospital for depression he is still fine.


No. That's a disqualifier. If someone deems themselves a threat (to themselves or others), they can't own a firearm for at least a year or more.
 
2013-09-17 10:32:30 PM  

feckingmorons: If an armed citizen stops a criminal before we have a mass shooting then we don't have a mass shooting


And if my uncle were a woman he would be very strange.
 
2013-09-17 10:32:39 PM  
In reality...

The headline should read: "How many mass shootings were stopped after the first shot was fired?"
 
2013-09-17 10:33:13 PM  

DoctorCal: Elegy: I don't normally buy into their neocon foreign policy derp, but in this case The Weekly Standard has a good rebuttal of the Mother Jones piece TFA is based on.

In this case, the Weekly Standard is right. The original mother jones study was flawed because it considered only incidents where more than 4 people died, and not every incident where some crazy with a gun begins firing at people in a public space.

Salon has picked up the derp to push the agenda.

The headline does say "mass shooting". Now I'm having trouble keeping this straight. What, *exactly*, qualifies as a "mass shooting", again? Seems like it was at least 15 dead at some point this summer.


In the case of the original mother jones study, the criteria they used to define "mass shootings" were:

-four or more people were killed by the shooter (shooter is counted in that fatality count if he died at the end of his rampage)
-The killings were carried out by a lone shooter
-the shootings occurred in a public place
-a handful of spree killings that occurred at multiple locations were also included.


Again, the methodology is outright flawed, because they didn't take into account shooters who were stopped before they got to 4 (or 1 for that matter).

The fire analogy was used upthread, and I thought it was a good one:

I just completed a study that shows that in 684 cases where buildings burned down. In all cases, the fire department didn't affect the outcome, in fact, they weren't even on site at the time, and the buildings burned down to the ground. Therefore, fire departments are useless and we should disband them.

Would you buy that? No, and you shouldn't, because I failed to take into account any other outcome except the worst possible one, i.e. I'm ignoring the cases where the fire department stopped was actually present and stopped the fire in time to save the building.
 
2013-09-17 10:33:16 PM  
Props for everyone for having an interesting discussion. This will be done soon when the green hits
 
2013-09-17 10:33:20 PM  

NewportBarGuy: NickelP: Also not that I think any of that is a bad idea, because I ddon't, but would it of prevented any mass shooting you can think of?

Yes.

If we had a fully integrated computer system of all 50 states with regard to crimes, pending charges, and mental health, you could have a pretty clear determination on whether a sale should go through. It would have stopped this guy if his VA mental health record popped a red flag. A system like that could have stopped a metric sh*t ton of crimes and suicides.


Unfortunately, every time reasonable actions are suggested to help reporting, gun control activists have to screw it up by demanding that the system cover people well beyond the purpose of it just to harass law abiding gun owners. Just like how the feds had to ban the collection of some gun statistics and prohibit some type of data collection because the gun control crowd was so great in their desire to ban guns that they were abusing the system.

If it weren't for gun control activists, we'd probably have much more sensible laws.
 
2013-09-17 10:33:38 PM  

NewportBarGuy: feckingmorons: NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013

feckingmorons: Yet it will languish in committee and die.

It does not determine, adequately, when someone who is determined to have a mental illness is once again cleared to own a firearm. To me, that's a NO vote.

I like it, but it needs tweaking.


That is sort of the problem,we don't want to offend the mentally ill. Which I completely understand, but I think this bill does provide the necessary 'I'm better' relief:

'(B) In this paragraph, the term 'order or finding' [that a person is disqualified] does not include--

'(i) an order or finding that--

' (I) has expired or has been set aside or expunged; or

' (II) requires treatment, supervision, or monitoring of a person, from which treatment, supervision, or monitoring the person has been fully released or discharged;

'(ii) an order or finding that is no longer applicable because a judicial officer, court, board, commission, or other adjudicative body has found that the person who is the subject of the order or finding--

' (I) does not present a danger to himself or to others;

' (II) has been restored to sanity or cured of mental disease or defect;

' (III) has been restored to competency; or

' (IV) no longer requires involuntary inpatient or outpatient treatment by, or involuntary commitment to, a psychiatric hospital; or

'(iii) an order or finding with respect to which the person who is subject to the order or finding has been found to be rehabilitated or has been granted relief from disabilities through any procedure available under the law of the jurisdiction in which the order or finding was issued.


Sorry about the formatting. This is a vast improvement. It is still in committee, it can be revised (it won't be because it will die, but it could be).
 
2013-09-17 10:33:53 PM  
Ms. Jeanne Assam was an "armed civilian".
 
2013-09-17 10:34:44 PM  

NewportBarGuy: In reality...

The headline should read: "How many mass shootings were stopped after the first shot was fired?"


The headline should read: "How many mass shootings were stopped after the first shot was fired four people were killed already?"
 
2013-09-17 10:35:05 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: I was armed when someone asked me for directions. I was friendly and gave him excellent directions. Little did I know that had I did things a little differently -that guy would have gone on a shooting rampage.


That was me.  And your demeanour pissed me off so much that I started adding superfluous "u"s in between my "o"s and "r"s.

The shooting rampage would have been more merciful for all involved.
 
2013-09-17 10:39:56 PM  

Shostie: [i.imgur.com image 239x300]


whar funny button...whar?
 
2013-09-17 10:40:08 PM  

Elegy: DoctorCal: Elegy: I don't normally buy into their neocon foreign policy derp, but in this case The Weekly Standard has a good rebuttal of the Mother Jones piece TFA is based on.

In this case, the Weekly Standard is right. The original mother jones study was flawed because it considered only incidents where more than 4 people died, and not every incident where some crazy with a gun begins firing at people in a public space.

Salon has picked up the derp to push the agenda.

The headline does say "mass shooting". Now I'm having trouble keeping this straight. What, *exactly*, qualifies as a "mass shooting", again? Seems like it was at least 15 dead at some point this summer.

In the case of the original mother jones study, the criteria they used to define "mass shootings" were:

-four or more people were killed by the shooter (shooter is counted in that fatality count if he died at the end of his rampage)
-The killings were carried out by a lone shooter
-the shootings occurred in a public place
-a handful of spree killings that occurred at multiple locations were also included.


Again, the methodology is outright flawed, because they didn't take into account shooters who were stopped before they got to 4 (or 1 for that matter).

The fire analogy was used upthread, and I thought it was a good one:

I just completed a study that shows that in 684 cases where buildings burned down. In all cases, the fire department didn't affect the outcome, in fact, they weren't even on site at the time, and the buildings burned down to the ground. Therefore, fire departments are useless and we should disband them.

Would you buy that? No, and you shouldn't, because I failed to take into account any other outcome except the worst possible one, i.e. I'm ignoring the cases where the fire department stopped was actually present and stopped the fire in time to save the building.


I'm only asking because there have been at least a couple of threads this summer where people of a certain mindset have tried to minimize incidents where "only" four people died.
 
2013-09-17 10:41:28 PM  
I bet that they are 12 families in D.C. that would have loved to have some armed civilians onsite yesterday.
 
2013-09-17 10:41:50 PM  

NickelP: Props for everyone for having an interesting discussion. This will be done soon when the green hits


Faster than that. The NRA's anti-background check water-carriers have arrived.
 
2013-09-17 10:42:36 PM  

NickelP: I hope you are joking about the last part I can't read it right now. Which shooters in mass murders over the last 5 years who legally purchased their own guns would have been stopped by that bill?


The pot part, yeah if you smoke pot you can't buy a gun. I wasn't calling you a pothead, I submitted before I got the s on potheads.

That bill none, but if the states submitted the data needed it could have stopped the VT guy, heck it could have stopped the guy at the Navy Yard if the VA had found he was dangerous and submitted it. (I have no idea if the VA made that determination). I could have stopped Loughner whose college said he was too dangerous to go to school there and sent him to a psychiatrist before he could return (he never went to the psychiatrist and never went back to school) Doesn't the school have a duty to tell the Court of their concerns about him being too dangerous to be in school? Shouldn't he had a court ordered evaluation (heck he might have been treated and not shot anyone).

People lie on the 4473 quite frequently I'm sure, and the NICS probably catches a lot of them (none that lie have been prosecuted amazingly), but we can up that catch rate if we include the appropriate mental health disqualifications.
 
2013-09-17 10:45:55 PM  

DoctorCal: NickelP: Props for everyone for having an interesting discussion. This will be done soon when the green hits

Faster than that. The NRA's anti-background check water-carriers have arrived.


I'm in the NRA and I won't sell a gun to anyone who has not had an NCIS check, a concealed carry (or other type of gun licensee that requires a fingerprint based background check), or someone I have personally know for quite some time.

I'm not opposed to background checks when buying a gun from a gun dealer.
 
2013-09-17 10:46:05 PM  

DoctorCal: NickelP: Props for everyone for having an interesting discussion. This will be done soon when the green hits

Faster than that. The NRA's anti-background check water-carriers have arrived.


Which posters in this discussion have stated opposition to background checks?
 
2013-09-17 10:47:03 PM  
That is obviously unprovable. And I don't see many armed civilians on, you know, military bases, school campuses or other gun-free areas. I wonder why that is.. or why they are so often targeted by lunatics.. It's amazing how we've started over on the same exact talking points.

Fark thread 12/19/12 - So, setting aside all the conservative derp and internet tough guy idiocy, here's the question: have armed citizens ever actually stopped a mass shooting? Answer: Yes, it's really only been successful when they've been off-duty cops

Rinse and repeat and repeat and repeat, no wonder nothing changes.
 
2013-09-17 10:47:27 PM  

feckingmorons: NewportBarGuy: feckingmorons: NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013

feckingmorons: Yet it will languish in committee and die.

It does not determine, adequately, when someone who is determined to have a mental illness is once again cleared to own a firearm. To me, that's a NO vote.

I like it, but it needs tweaking.

That is sort of the problem,we don't want to offend the mentally ill. Which I completely understand, but I think this bill does provide the necessary 'I'm better' relief:

'(B) In this paragraph, the term 'order or finding' [that a person is disqualified] does not include--

'(i) an order or finding that--

' (I) has expired or has been set aside or expunged; or

' (II) requires treatment, supervision, or monitoring of a person, from which treatment, supervision, or monitoring the person has been fully released or discharged;

'(ii) an order or finding that is no longer applicable because a judicial officer, court, board, commission, or other adjudicative body has found that the person who is the subject of the order or finding--

' (I) does not present a danger to himself or to others;

' (II) has been restored to sanity or cured of mental disease or defect;

' (III) has been restored to competency; or

' (IV) no longer requires involuntary inpatient or outpatient treatment by, or involuntary commitment to, a psychiatric hospital; or

'(iii) an order or finding with respect to which the person who is subject to the order or finding has been found to be rehabilitated or has been granted relief from disabilities through any procedure available under the law of the jurisdiction in which the order or finding was issued.

Sorry about the formatting. This is a vast improvement. It is still in committee, it can be revised (it won't be because it will die, but it could be).


There has to be a way to get off any list that doesn't require thousands of dollars.
 
2013-09-17 10:47:47 PM  
Not a single life was saved by a physical exam.
 
2013-09-17 10:49:13 PM  

DoctorCal: NickelP: Props for everyone for having an interesting discussion. This will be done soon when the green hits

Faster than that. The NRA's anti-background check water-carriers have arrived.


This NRA?
 
2013-09-17 10:51:33 PM  
Technically, the Virginia Tech, Columbine and Sandy Hook shootings were stopped by armed civilians.
 
2013-09-17 10:53:20 PM  

DoctorCal: I'm only asking because there have been at least a couple of threads this summer where people of a certain mindset have tried to minimize incidents where "only" four people died.


Understood, and for the record I wasn't trying to lecture you - that critique was directed towards the thread in general and not you specifically.
 
2013-09-17 10:54:48 PM  

violentsalvation: DoctorCal: NickelP: Props for everyone for having an interesting discussion. This will be done soon when the green hits

Faster than that. The NRA's anti-background check water-carriers have arrived.

This NRA?


No, not the NRA from Feb. 2009.

This NRA.
 
2013-09-17 10:55:41 PM  

feckingmorons: NickelP: I hope you are joking about the last part I can't read it right now. Which shooters in mass murders over the last 5 years who legally purchased their own guns would have been stopped by that bill?

The pot part, yeah if you smoke pot you can't buy a gun. I wasn't calling you a pothead, I submitted before I got the s on potheads.

That bill none, but if the states submitted the data needed it could have stopped the VT guy, heck it could have stopped the guy at the Navy Yard if the VA had found he was dangerous and submitted it. (I have no idea if the VA made that determination). I could have stopped Loughner whose college said he was too dangerous to go to school there and sent him to a psychiatrist before he could return (he never went to the psychiatrist and never went back to school) Doesn't the school have a duty to tell the Court of their concerns about him being too dangerous to be in school? Shouldn't he had a court ordered evaluation (heck he might have been treated and not shot anyone).

People lie on the 4473 quite frequently I'm sure, and the NICS probably catches a lot of them (none that lie have been prosecuted amazingly), but we can up that catch rate if we include the appropriate mental health disqualifications.


Interesting I will read up more on that. fyi iI'm not a pot head, been years since I touched that stuff. I do think its a bit of bullshiat and political vengeance to say someone that maybe has cancer and wants a joint so they can keep food down during chemo is mentally unstable and can't own guns. Way to kill a bill over something that has shiat to do with the subject at hand
 
2013-09-17 10:56:29 PM  

dr_blasto: There has to be a way to get off any list that doesn't require thousands of dollars.


Yeah, that would be nice. Now there is no way at all (unless it was the VA or another federal agency that had you involuntarily hospitalized or diagnosed as a danger to self and others) , so that Bill would be a good step.

I don't know what it would cost. Wouldn't that be the last thing done before they tell you 'don't let the door hit ya on the way out' when you leave the hospital? Sign some sort of form that says you can take care of your own affairs now.

I know people who have been in guardianships but 'got better' and had them rescinded, but that probably cost thousands as lawyers were involved.
 
2013-09-17 10:57:53 PM  

Elegy: DoctorCal: I'm only asking because there have been at least a couple of threads this summer where people of a certain mindset have tried to minimize incidents where "only" four people died.

Understood, and for the record I wasn't trying to lecture you - that critique was directed towards the thread in general and not you specifically.


I getcha. Didn't think you were lecturing, and it does seem pretty clear that someone drew just the right qualifications for their statement to eliminate a bunch of incidents from fitting the wording.
 
2013-09-17 11:01:01 PM  

NickelP: I do think its a bit of bullshiat and political vengeance to say someone that maybe has cancer and wants a joint so they can keep food down during chemo is mentally unstable and can't own guns.


What about somebody who is young, healthy, and completely without pain, but likes to blaze up because it makes the music feel like space cartoons. Does the weed make them unsafe to have a firearm?
 
2013-09-17 11:01:56 PM  

NickelP: Interesting I will read up more on that. fyi iI'm not a pot head, been years since I touched that stuff. I do think its a bit of bullshiat and political vengeance to say someone that maybe has cancer and wants a joint so they can keep food down during chemo is mentally unstable and can't own guns. Way to kill a bill over something that has shiat to do with the subject at hand


The pot thing has been around forever, it is just recently that is has come into conflict with state law. That is one thing that could possibly be fixed with an executive order as the law requires one to be 'an unlawful user of, addicted to marijuana...etc. It is possible that an EO could treat unlawful user of marijuana as someone only resident in someplace where it is illegal by state law.

There is no lab test so I bet most people just say no, really who would say yes?
 
2013-09-17 11:04:54 PM  

DoctorCal: NickelP: I do think its a bit of bullshiat and political vengeance to say someone that maybe has cancer and wants a joint so they can keep food down during chemo is mentally unstable and can't own guns.

What about somebody who is young, healthy, and completely without pain, but likes to blaze up because it makes the music feel like space cartoons. Does the weed make them unsafe to have a firearm?


I don't think so. Not anymore than someone who likes to.drink. I wonder if step two to that bill is banning anyone who has had a dui public intox underage consumption, open container etc.

as mentioned previously this is the problem with gun control. Every time reasonable gun owners start getting on board a bunch of bullshiat gets added to restrict them unreasonably.
 
2013-09-17 11:07:30 PM  

feckingmorons: NickelP: Interesting I will read up more on that. fyi iI'm not a pot head, been years since I touched that stuff. I do think its a bit of bullshiat and political vengeance to say someone that maybe has cancer and wants a joint so they can keep food down during chemo is mentally unstable and can't own guns. Way to kill a bill over something that has shiat to do with the subject at hand

The pot thing has been around forever, it is just recently that is has come into conflict with state law. That is one thing that could possibly be fixed with an executive order as the law requires one to be 'an unlawful user of, addicted to marijuana...etc. It is possible that an EO could treat unlawful user of marijuana as someone only resident in someplace where it is illegal by state law.

There is no lab test so I bet most people just say no, really who would say yes?


What happens if you get arrested, have a ccw on you that is permitted, and a joint? Did you just tack on a felony Or a few?
 
2013-09-17 11:08:22 PM  

DoctorCal: NickelP: I do think its a bit of bullshiat and political vengeance to say someone that maybe has cancer and wants a joint so they can keep food down during chemo is mentally unstable and can't own guns.

What about somebody who is young, healthy, and completely without pain, but likes to blaze up because it makes the music feel like space cartoons. Does the weed make them unsafe to have a firearm?


Weed is a disqualifier because its illegal. I don't believe it has anything to do with mental health. Brink a drunk is also a disqualifier.
 
2013-09-17 11:09:48 PM  

NickelP: feckingmorons: NickelP: Interesting I will read up more on that. fyi iI'm not a pot head, been years since I touched that stuff. I do think its a bit of bullshiat and political vengeance to say someone that maybe has cancer and wants a joint so they can keep food down during chemo is mentally unstable and can't own guns. Way to kill a bill over something that has shiat to do with the subject at hand

The pot thing has been around forever, it is just recently that is has come into conflict with state law. That is one thing that could possibly be fixed with an executive order as the law requires one to be 'an unlawful user of, addicted to marijuana...etc. It is possible that an EO could treat unlawful user of marijuana as someone only resident in someplace where it is illegal by state law.

There is no lab test so I bet most people just say no, really who would say yes?

What happens if you get arrested, have a ccw on you that is permitted, and a joint? Did you just tack on a felony Or a few?


If they catch you with two joints, then distribution and the firearm can make it worse. Using a gun in the commission of a crime and all that.
 
2013-09-17 11:11:35 PM  

dr_blasto: DoctorCal: NickelP: I do think its a bit of bullshiat and political vengeance to say someone that maybe has cancer and wants a joint so they can keep food down during chemo is mentally unstable and can't own guns.

What about somebody who is young, healthy, and completely without pain, but likes to blaze up because it makes the music feel like space cartoons. Does the weed make them unsafe to have a firearm?

Weed is a disqualifier because its illegal. I don't believe it has anything to do with mental health. Brink a drunk is also a disqualifier.


I'm sober as a judge tonight, I swear!
 
2013-09-17 11:12:00 PM  

mikeray: I bet that they are 12 families in D.C. that would have loved to have some armed civilians onsite yesterday.


You mean with the same weapons that killed their loved ones? I doubt it.
 
2013-09-17 11:16:01 PM  

feckingmorons: Sorry about the formatting. This is a vast improvement. It is still in committee, it can be revised (it won't be because it will die, but it could be).


I see no waiting period.
 
2013-09-17 11:16:52 PM  
Do armed bystanders stop mass shootings? The answer is:

Yes, but rarely.

In fact, of most of the mass shootings that are stopped by an armed bystander (which is less than 1%), the armed bystander tends to be an off duty cop, a marine, or a member of some other law enforcement profession where they've had requisite training in deadly situations. For average citizens, however, whenever they intervene with their CCW, they usually end up seriously injured or dead.

Summed up: The aggregate result of armed civilian intervention in a mass shooting is inconclusive. There is too small a sampleset and too many variables involved (location/nature of the shooting, weapons used, experience and training of the citizen, terrain, positioning, etc....) in each case for us to even make that conclusion. And there is a law of unintended consequences to consider (see: Zimmerman, George). We have to ask ourselves whether its worth it to have the innocent bystander murdered every so often on suspicions that he was a potential mass shooter.

So while self-sacrifice is a noble virtue, there are a myriad of factors to consider when involved in a shootout with someone who is unhinged and with whom you are almost certainly outgunned. You cannot expect teachers or civilians or anyone to have the capacity to make the right choices given their options, and it's too much to ask them to receive compulsory gun/army/marine/survival/bootcamp training for a low percentage chance at a beneficial pay off.
 
2013-09-17 11:18:44 PM  

NewportBarGuy: feckingmorons: Sorry about the formatting. This is a vast improvement. It is still in committee, it can be revised (it won't be because it will die, but it could be).

I see no waiting period.


Does that negate feckingmorons's statement?
 
433 [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 11:21:22 PM  
DRTFA, DRTcomments.

A shooting at Smith County Courthouse in Texas was halted by a man with a sidearm.  The shooter had shot several people in the courthouse, several more outside.  A man with a concealed-carry license drew on him, and struck the shooter, mortally wounding him.  The shooter fatally shot the man firing at him, and fled in a pickup.  He wrecked the truck a distance later, dead.

This event may not be considered a mass shooting by some measures, but it was agreed by the witnesses that lives were saved by the man who shot the suspect, by drawing his attention (and fire) away.

I wouldn't expect Salon to consider my hometown of 100k in East Texas in their article. It's likely that the man with the concealed-carry would have been armed even had he been without the license, but really, I don't know.  He did, however make a heroic move against a man who was about to hurt other people.  Without a pistol, he may have rushed the guy, he was said to have been that sort of character.

The thrust of all this is the following: Men like him are the sort of person you want to have a concealed carry license.Determining that kind of character can't be done qualitatively by the government at the public level.  I don't know what to do about that.  However, when it is time for a man or woman to step up, I want that person to be there, in whatever manner they deem fit.
 
2013-09-17 11:24:01 PM  

NickelP: What happens if you get arrested, have a ccw on you that is permitted, and a joint? Did you just tack on a felony Or a few?


I would think you could, but one must assume it would all depend on how much of a dick you are. If you're arrested for the pot they would probably just make you put your gun away as it really isn't an element of the offense.

If you just punched a guy in the eye (misdemeanor battery) and you had a gun and a splif (and the guy didn't deserve it) I could see them adding a felony.
 
2013-09-17 11:26:52 PM  

DoctorCal: What, *exactly*, qualifies as a "mass shooting", again?


I would say it's any open gunfire in a public place with no particular targets in mind. The shooter doesn't necessarily have to kill or hit anyone, he just has to open fire in a public place hoping to hit lots of people.
 
2013-09-17 11:27:39 PM  

NewportBarGuy: feckingmorons: Sorry about the formatting. This is a vast improvement. It is still in committee, it can be revised (it won't be because it will die, but it could be).

I see no waiting period.


Maybe I'm missing something? Waiting period for what?

This bill only clears up confusion in the old law (the one after VT) and give those with mental illness disqualification who got better an out (as it should). There is nothing about waiting periods. I don't think there are any federal laws about waiting periods. Those are all state and local to the best of my knowledge.

I'm not keen on waiting periods. If you're nutty enough this week to shoot up a mall, won't you be just as nutty (or angry) next week. I don't think it really gives people time to cool down. Crimes of passion usually don't include a trip to Cabellas.

Conversely, if a woman has a SO that just beat the crap out of her who is arranging bail she might want to run down to the gun store and come home with a twelve gauge today.
 
2013-09-17 11:29:33 PM  

feckingmorons: NickelP: What happens if you get arrested, have a ccw on you that is permitted, and a joint? Did you just tack on a felony Or a few?

I would think you could, but one must assume it would all depend on how much of a dick you are. If you're arrested for the pot they would probably just make you put your gun away as it really isn't an element of the offense.

If you just punched a guy in the eye (misdemeanor battery) and you had a gun and a splif (and the guy didn't deserve it) I could see them adding a felony.


As adding gun registries that are publicly searchable becomes a big thing, do you think it is reasonable to think at some point someone may say 'shiat lets cross check that with the marijuana records and add some felonies to our quotas this month!?'

I don't understand why anyone would be in favor of passing a law based on believing it won't or shouldn't be enforced.

Do you favor restricting gun rights to anyone who use weed?  I'd have to google but I think that is something like 20% of those over 18 over the last 18 months.  I can see an issue with any gun legislation that says 1/5 the population can no longer own a gun.
 
433 [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 11:30:37 PM  

Ishkur: Do armed bystanders stop mass shootings? The answer is:

Yes, but rarely.


I'm glad you linked to that article.  I don't think it is a matter of arms that determines safety, but in severe situations, weapons offer assistance.  At the risk of sounding trite or cliche, when there is need, I hope someone will meet it.

Whether it's a Boy Scout helping an elderly person across the street, a parent halting the hand of someone abusing their child at the supermarket, to someone tackling or confronting a crook trying to hold up a business - I want someone there that will meet the situation's need.

I don't know if a gun is needed for all those things, and I'd hate to see the gun turned around on the potential hero, but when you need someone heroic, I hope GI JOE is there.
 
wee
2013-09-17 11:35:22 PM  
Great, this shiat again.

Anyone have their deeply-held opinion changed recently?

Thought not...
 
2013-09-17 11:39:06 PM  

feckingmorons: NewportBarGuy: feckingmorons: Sorry about the formatting. This is a vast improvement. It is still in committee, it can be revised (it won't be because it will die, but it could be).

I see no waiting period.

Maybe I'm missing something? Waiting period for what?

This bill only clears up confusion in the old law (the one after VT) and give those with mental illness disqualification who got better an out (as it should). There is nothing about waiting periods. I don't think there are any federal laws about waiting periods. Those are all state and local to the best of my knowledge.

I'm not keen on waiting periods. If you're nutty enough this week to shoot up a mall, won't you be just as nutty (or angry) next week. I don't think it really gives people time to cool down. Crimes of passion usually don't include a trip to Cabellas.

Conversely, if a woman has a SO that just beat the crap out of her who is arranging bail she might want to run down to the gun store and come home with a twelve gauge today.


The math changes over time. Sure, a nutter is going to be a nutter next week, but suicidal people have a much narrower window during which they're likely to do the deed. Also, the same holds true for the crimes of passion shooters.

I don't really know if a week would make a difference, though I do think it is worth studying. I would expect you could provide for a collector-type license so as not to inconvenience that group, a group who are noticeably less likely to be an offender in any violent crimes involving guns.

I don't know, though, aren't most places only putting waiting requirements on handguns?
 
2013-09-17 11:45:13 PM  

NickelP: feckingmorons: NickelP: What happens if you get arrested, have a ccw on you that is permitted, and a joint? Did you just tack on a felony Or a few?

I would think you could, but one must assume it would all depend on how much of a dick you are. If you're arrested for the pot they would probably just make you put your gun away as it really isn't an element of the offense.

If you just punched a guy in the eye (misdemeanor battery) and you had a gun and a splif (and the guy didn't deserve it) I could see them adding a felony.

As adding gun registries that are publicly searchable becomes a big thing, do you think it is reasonable to think at some point someone may say 'shiat lets cross check that with the marijuana records and add some felonies to our quotas this month!?'

I don't understand why anyone would be in favor of passing a law based on believing it won't or shouldn't be enforced.

Do you favor restricting gun rights to anyone who use weed?  I'd have to google but I think that is something like 20% of those over 18 over the last 18 months.  I can see an issue with any gun legislation that says 1/5 the population can no longer own a gun.


Weed isn't even the problem. Stoners don't shoot people, drunks do.
 
2013-09-17 11:45:44 PM  

NickelP: Do you favor restricting gun rights to anyone who use weed?


Nope. In fact I favor decriminalization of marijuana under one ounce or so. If can be a civil infraction like running a red light if it must be penalized.

I'm opposed to gun registries, publicly searchable or not. In Florida it is a crime for any police department or governmental unit to keep a record of firearm ownership. If you shoot an murderer in your kitchen and the police take your gun they must return it to you after the investigation AND remove anything from the records that would reveal the specific gun (serial number).

I don't think the government is organized to cross check anything. Hell they can't keep crazy people from shooting up their military bases. That DB that TSA uses if you forget your license (not if you are a dick about showing it - you really have to have forgotten or lost it) so they can ask you questions only you would know the answer to, like who holds your mortgage or what street did you live on in 1982 is from Lexis Nexis, don't think the government is nearly that organized.
 
2013-09-17 11:48:20 PM  

Ishkur: DoctorCal: What, *exactly*, qualifies as a "mass shooting", again?

I would say it's any open gunfire in a public place with no particular targets in mind. The shooter doesn't necessarily have to kill or hit anyone, he just has to open fire in a public place hoping to hit lots of people.


That's not how the dataset that Mother Jones built defines it.

They define it as any shooting that took the lives of 4 or more people. They also included some spree shootings and not others, but weren't clear on what criteria they used to include or exclude spree shootings.

As I said above, its like building a dataset of only buildings that burned down, and using that dataset to come to the conclusion that fire departments are a useless waste of taxpayer money.
 
2013-09-17 11:48:27 PM  

dr_blasto: I don't know, though, aren't most places only putting waiting requirements on handguns?


I think so. That wouldn't have helped in this instance as the murderer used a shotgun. I think he got the handguns from people he murdered.

There was no AK-47 or AR-15, reporters think everything is one of those. An M1A1 Abrams Battle Tank is an AR-15 to those clowns.
 
2013-09-17 11:49:20 PM  

Elegy: That's not how the dataset that Mother Jones built defines it.


Does anyone really care about Mother Jones? Those people are so far out in left field.
 
2013-09-17 11:52:21 PM  

feckingmorons: Elegy: That's not how the dataset that Mother Jones built defines it.

Does anyone really care about Mother Jones? Those people are so far out in left field.


Well, I assumed it was relevant since its what TFA and this thread are based on, but I could be wrong.
 
2013-09-17 11:52:41 PM  

feckingmorons: NickelP: Do you favor restricting gun rights to anyone who use weed?

Nope. In fact I favor decriminalization of marijuana under one ounce or so. If can be a civil infraction like running a red light if it must be penalized.

I'm opposed to gun registries, publicly searchable or not. In Florida it is a crime for any police department or governmental unit to keep a record of firearm ownership. If you shoot an murderer in your kitchen and the police take your gun they must return it to you after the investigation AND remove anything from the records that would reveal the specific gun (serial number).

I don't think the government is organized to cross check anything. Hell they can't keep crazy people from shooting up their military bases. That DB that TSA uses if you forget your license (not if you are a dick about showing it - you really have to have forgotten or lost it) so they can ask you questions only you would know the answer to, like who holds your mortgage or what street did you live on in 1982 is from Lexis Nexis, don't think the government is nearly that organized.


Then stop supporting legislation that is against your values.

I am against gun registries too.  We don't all live in florida though.  There are several places it is publicly available.  Hell newspapers have had over lays on google maps to show who has them.  Don't hide behind the 'well the gov is so unorganized they could never say omg someone is in the medical mj db and has a cwp'.  That is a 20 second search for the it folks.

Either way, if you or I am write on how hard that is for the gov to cross check, it is absolutely nonsense to pass laws based on the belief that they won't be able to enforce them.  Can you provide any justification to that?
 
2013-09-17 11:59:39 PM  

feckingmorons: dr_blasto: I don't know, though, aren't most places only putting waiting requirements on handguns?

I think so. That wouldn't have helped in this instance as the murderer used a shotgun. I think he got the handguns from people he murdered.

There was no AK-47 or AR-15, reporters think everything is one of those. An M1A1 Abrams Battle Tank is an AR-15 to those clowns.


It was more to the point of the battered wife picking up a 12 gauge from Dick's.

I don't think that, even though there were documented issues, the latest guy would have been blocked from purchasing any weapon--mostly due to the fact that nobody seems to have really cared he shot a car over some nonsense and was allowed to continue to keep whatever gun he used. Or, at least, wasn't put on the "holy fark don't sell this whacko a gun" list.
 
2013-09-18 12:00:13 AM  

Elegy: feckingmorons: Elegy: That's not how the dataset that Mother Jones built defines it.

Does anyone really care about Mother Jones? Those people are so far out in left field.

Well, I assumed it was relevant since its what TFA and this thread are based on, but I could be wrong.


Cigar Afficianado has a bigger circulation by about 3 people. (And they are just as annoying).
 
2013-09-18 12:02:25 AM  

NickelP: Then stop supporting legislation that is against your values.


I don't support laws that go against my values.

I won't live in a state that requires you to register your gun. I'd love to move back to Western New York, but their gun laws and state income tax are just too much for me. I love that part of the country, but I can't stomach that sort of nonsense.
 
2013-09-18 12:04:05 AM  

dr_blasto: I don't think that, even though there were documented issues, the latest guy would have been blocked from purchasing any weapon--mostly due to the fact that nobody seems to have really cared he shot a car over some nonsense and was allowed to continue to keep whatever gun he used. Or, at least, wasn't put on the "holy fark don't sell this whacko a gun" list.


Yeah, why no felony conviction for that. In Florida I'd be convicted and have to do a minimum of 5 years. Florida has no early release.

If you black out because you're angry and shoot up some construction worker's car you need to go to prison or to the hospital, but either one should leave a mark on your record such that you can't play with guns anymore.
 
2013-09-18 12:06:31 AM  

NickelP: feckingmorons: NickelP: Do you favor restricting gun rights to anyone who use weed?

Nope. In fact I favor decriminalization of marijuana under one ounce or so. If can be a civil infraction like running a red light if it must be penalized.

I'm opposed to gun registries, publicly searchable or not. In Florida it is a crime for any police department or governmental unit to keep a record of firearm ownership. If you shoot an murderer in your kitchen and the police take your gun they must return it to you after the investigation AND remove anything from the records that would reveal the specific gun (serial number).

I don't think the government is organized to cross check anything. Hell they can't keep crazy people from shooting up their military bases. That DB that TSA uses if you forget your license (not if you are a dick about showing it - you really have to have forgotten or lost it) so they can ask you questions only you would know the answer to, like who holds your mortgage or what street did you live on in 1982 is from Lexis Nexis, don't think the government is nearly that organized.

Then stop supporting legislation that is against your values.

I am against gun registries too.  We don't all live in florida though.  There are several places it is publicly available.  Hell newspapers have had over lays on google maps to show who has them.  Don't hide behind the 'well the gov is so unorganized they could never say omg someone is in the medical mj db and has a cwp'.  That is a 20 second search for the it folks.

Either way, if you or I am write on how hard that is for the gov to cross check, it is absolutely nonsense to pass laws based on the belief that they won't be able to enforce them.  Can you provide any justification to that?


Way too many laws are passed with the public understanding that they can't or won't be enforced. That's bullshiat.

The whole "oh those pot people will only get in trouble if they act up" nonsense is crap. The fact is, so many f these laws allow for significant harassment of just about anyone-not to mention what they mean to the guy who gets caught smoking that one joint he partaken of every summer whe out camping with his friends.
 
2013-09-18 12:11:32 AM  

Elegy: They define it as any shooting that took the lives of 4 or more people.


I wouldn't agree with that. A guy could gun down his whole family before turning the gun on himself and they wouldn't call it a shooting but a mass murder.

I do like the qualifiers that it has to be in a public place and the targets have to be random and/or have no relationship with the shooter, but I don't place any value on a minimum number of casualties. A guy could unleash an entire M16 clip into a crowded mall food court and hit no one, it would still be called a mass shooting, just one where the shooter sucked at shooting.

Because the emphasis is on the word "shooting". Not deaths, but shooting. Meaning there's got to be a lot of bullets fired. Where they go is irrelevant.
 
2013-09-18 12:11:48 AM  
Must we have this silly thread every other day?
 
2013-09-18 12:13:44 AM  

wee: Great, this shiat again.

Anyone have their deeply-held opinion changed recently?

Thought not...


Done in...whatever # this post was.
 
2013-09-18 12:14:11 AM  

NickelP: Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed. Can you make us a case that any mass shooting was made worse by an armed civilian? And don't say the shooter dumbass


Your flawless logic has convinced me. Every person should be required to not only own a firearm, but hold it in their hand at all times. Firearm deaths will drop to zero. It might just take a couple weeks.
 
2013-09-18 12:27:56 AM  

feckingmorons: dr_blasto: I don't think that, even though there were documented issues, the latest guy would have been blocked from purchasing any weapon--mostly due to the fact that nobody seems to have really cared he shot a car over some nonsense and was allowed to continue to keep whatever gun he used. Or, at least, wasn't put on the "holy fark don't sell this whacko a gun" list.

Yeah, why no felony conviction for that. In Florida I'd be convicted and have to do a minimum of 5 years. Florida has no early release.

If you black out because you're angry and shoot up some construction worker's car you need to go to prison or to the hospital, but either one should leave a mark on your record such that you can't play with guns anymore.


Point of order: it would have been 20 years in Florida, mandatory, with no early release, if he was found guilty of a crime when shot the construction worker's vehicle. It's 10-20-life: 10 for committing a crime with a gun, 20 for firing a gun during the commission of the crime, and 25 to life if you shoot someone. See also: Marissa Alexander.

Not sure that would have helped in this case, however, IIRC the breakdown was between the DA and the police, the DA never got the paperwork and so no charges were filed.

Wait - or was that the OTHER gun incident he got away with?
 
2013-09-18 12:34:32 AM  

433: The thrust of all this is the following: Men like him are the sort of person you want to have a concealed carry license.Determining that kind of character can't be done qualitatively by the government at the public level. I don't know what to do about that. However, when it is time for a man or woman to step up, I want that person to be there, in whatever manner they deem fit.


That's great, but I would rather deal with the problem before the bullets start flying.
 
2013-09-18 12:35:45 AM  

John Buck 41: Must we have this silly thread every other day?


Mass murders must be so inconvenient for you!
 
2013-09-18 12:39:35 AM  

Ishkur: Elegy: They define it as any shooting that took the lives of 4 or more people.

I wouldn't agree with that. A guy could gun down his whole family before turning the gun on himself and they wouldn't call it a shooting but a mass murder.

I do like the qualifiers that it has to be in a public place and the targets have to be random and/or have no relationship with the shooter, but I don't place any value on a minimum number of casualties. A guy could unleash an entire M16 clip into a crowded mall food court and hit no one, it would still be called a mass shooting, just one where the shooter sucked at shooting.

Because the emphasis is on the word "shooting". Not deaths, but shooting. Meaning there's got to be a lot of bullets fired. Where they go is irrelevant.


I actually agree with you - the criteria of at least 4 deaths and some (but not other) spree shootings slants this data exactly the way MoJo wants to slant it - that no bystander has ever stopped a mass shooting.

Which is simply not true. Posted this upthread, but it bears repeating: the Weekly Standard has a good refutation of the Mother Jones dataset where they detail incidents where a gunman firing in a public space was brought down before he could kill 4 or more people.

e.g. Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two

Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.


And they go on to list several more.

I have built a database of traffic "severe" traffic accidents, but I've excluded all traffic accidents that occurred at a speed of less than 150 miles an hour from my database because they don't meet my definition of "severe."

Guess what? My database shows that seatbelt a don't work - in 100% of severe accidents over a period of 30 years, the driver died even if he or she was wearing a seatbelt.

Let's get rid of all seatbelts - they obviously do nothing to prevent traffic deaths.
 
2013-09-18 12:51:29 AM  
F*ck it. Who brought popcorn?
 
2013-09-18 12:56:28 AM  
Prove that negative will ya?
 
433 [TotalFark]
2013-09-18 12:57:16 AM  

Mentat: 433: The thrust of all this is the following: Men like him are the sort of person you want to have a concealed carry license.Determining that kind of character can't be done qualitatively by the government at the public level. I don't know what to do about that. However, when it is time for a man or woman to step up, I want that person to be there, in whatever manner they deem fit.

That's great, but I would rather deal with the problem before the bullets start flying.


I think that would be ideal.  Stopping a determined individual from causing violence is extremely difficult, no matter how you look at it. If it is not one thing, it's another - it's always something.
 
2013-09-18 01:01:42 AM  
According to a

It's sarcasm folks, Mother Jones is like The Onion with less accurate facts and hardly any humor.
 
2013-09-18 01:14:52 AM  
i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-18 01:17:30 AM  

2wolves: Folks, U.S. citizens love their guns and love violence.  Until the culture changes you're pissing into the wind.


The Heller and McDonald cases in the Supreme Court were both decided 5-4 along ideological lines.  All it takes is for the court to swing from conservative majority to liberal majority and the right case to come through to dramatically change the way we regulate firearms.

The vast majority of people are in favor of more regulation, over 90% in favor of universal background checks, and a majority in favor of a registration system for firearms.  Unfortunately the NRA is such a powerful lobby and the gun nuts so fanatical in their devotion that they're effectively drowning out the majority voice.

Over time I think sanity will prevail and we'll look back at these wild west days with the same sense of shame as we do the days before the civil rights movement today.
 
2013-09-18 01:24:09 AM  
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-tha t -were-stopped-by-someone-wit
9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally-Owned Firearm that the Mother Jones "study" pretended didn't happen or just ignored.
 
2013-09-18 01:28:27 AM  

Tyee: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-tha t -were-stopped-by-someone-wit
9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally-Owned Firearm that the Mother Jones "study" pretended didn't happen or just ignored.


And of all of those only 3 were stopped by an actual non-military, non-law-enforcement, civilian.
 
2013-09-18 01:40:22 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Tyee: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-tha t -were-stopped-by-someone-wit
9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally-Owned Firearm that the Mother Jones "study" pretended didn't happen or just ignored.

And of all of those only 3 were stopped by an actual non-military, non-law-enforcement, civilian.


So they were ignored then or did the Mother Jones "study" pretended they didn't happen?  What else did Mother intentionally not include or inform us about?
 
2013-09-18 01:42:57 AM  

Tyee: TuteTibiImperes: Tyee: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-tha t -were-stopped-by-someone-wit
9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally-Owned Firearm that the Mother Jones "study" pretended didn't happen or just ignored.

And of all of those only 3 were stopped by an actual non-military, non-law-enforcement, civilian.

So they were ignored then or did the Mother Jones "study" pretended they didn't happen?  What else did Mother intentionally not include or inform us about?


Could be differing definitions on what counts as a mass shooting.  Of the three involving civilians one was more of a robbery gone bad than a mass shooting, and without knowing the full stories behind the other two it's hard to tell what the motives, targets, etc, were.
 
2013-09-18 01:47:05 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Tyee: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-tha t -were-stopped-by-someone-wit
9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally-Owned Firearm that the Mother Jones "study" pretended didn't happen or just ignored.

And of all of those only 3 were stopped by an actual non-military, non-law-enforcement, civilian.


Four that I count right off the bat: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8

1 was Myrick, who was the assistant principal at Pearl. While Myrick was a reserve officer, the gun he had, IIRC, was his personal weapon.

4 was Assam and the church shooting - he was a former police officer, but not one at the time of the shooting according to the linked article.

I think 7 and 9 should be included as well, since the police officers were off duty and carrying a firearm as a private citizens.

Unless you're suggesting we disqualify anyone from the list that has ever served in the military or police.

Which, quite frankly, is bullshiat.

I think you're trying to cherry pick the data in your favor (surprise surprise). Actively serving military and police, as well as former military and police, make up a good percentage of the CCW registry. They have a ccw because they want to carry as private citizens.

If we follow the logic of the anti-gun lobby, ccw would not be allowed - who needs it right? - and those off duty officers would not have been allowed to carry their personal weapons as they were not on the job.

So at least 6 of the 9 shooters would not have been stopped without a citizen carrying a gun.
 
2013-09-18 01:47:58 AM  
Fark, screwed up my numbers: 5 that I counted right off the bat, plus the two off duty police officers, equals 7 out of 9.

It's late.
 
2013-09-18 01:48:25 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Could be differing definitions on what counts as a mass shooting.


  The point is that the Mother Jones study is less about valid information than it is about spreading misinformation.
 
2013-09-18 01:49:06 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Tyee: TuteTibiImperes: Tyee: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-tha t -were-stopped-by-someone-wit
9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally-Owned Firearm that the Mother Jones "study" pretended didn't happen or just ignored.

And of all of those only 3 were stopped by an actual non-military, non-law-enforcement, civilian.

So they were ignored then or did the Mother Jones "study" pretended they didn't happen?  What else did Mother intentionally not include or inform us about?

Could be differing definitions on what counts as a mass shooting.  Of the three involving civilians one was more of a robbery gone bad than a mass shooting, and without knowing the full stories behind the other two it's hard to tell what the motives, targets, etc, were.


Mother jones cherry picked the data just like you do.

Big surprise.
 
2013-09-18 01:51:30 AM  

Elegy: TuteTibiImperes: Tyee: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-tha t -were-stopped-by-someone-wit
9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally-Owned Firearm that the Mother Jones "study" pretended didn't happen or just ignored.

And of all of those only 3 were stopped by an actual non-military, non-law-enforcement, civilian.

Four that I count right off the bat: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8

1 was Myrick, who was the assistant principal at Pearl. While Myrick was a reserve officer, the gun he had, IIRC, was his personal weapon.

4 was Assam and the church shooting - he was a former police officer, but not one at the time of the shooting according to the linked article.

I think 7 and 9 should be included as well, since the police officers were off duty and carrying a firearm as a private citizens.

Unless you're suggesting we disqualify anyone from the list that has ever served in the military or police.

Which, quite frankly, is bullshiat.

I think you're trying to cherry pick the data in your favor (surprise surprise). Actively serving military and police, as well as former military and police, make up a good percentage of the CCW registry. They have a ccw because they want to carry as private citizens.

If we follow the logic of the anti-gun lobby, ccw would not be allowed - who needs it right? - and those off duty officers would not have been allowed to carry their personal weapons as they were not on the job.

So at least 6 of the 9 shooters would not have been stopped without a citizen carrying a gun.


You can lead a horse to water and make him drink easily, but Tute won't listen to a fact and you won't make him. Just relax.
 
2013-09-18 01:53:25 AM  

Elegy: TuteTibiImperes: Tyee: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-tha t -were-stopped-by-someone-wit
9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally-Owned Firearm that the Mother Jones "study" pretended didn't happen or just ignored.

And of all of those only 3 were stopped by an actual non-military, non-law-enforcement, civilian.

Four that I count right off the bat: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8

1 was Myrick, who was the assistant principal at Pearl. While Myrick was a reserve officer, the gun he had, IIRC, was his personal weapon.

4 was Assam and the church shooting - he was a former police officer, but not one at the time of the shooting according to the linked article.

I think 7 and 9 should be included as well, since the police officers were off duty and carrying a firearm as a private citizens.

Unless you're suggesting we disqualify anyone from the list that has ever served in the military or police.

Which, quite frankly, is bullshiat.

I think you're trying to cherry pick the data in your favor (surprise surprise). Actively serving military and police, as well as former military and police, make up a good percentage of the CCW registry. They have a ccw because they want to carry as private citizens.

If we follow the logic of the anti-gun lobby, ccw would not be allowed - who needs it right? - and those off duty officers would not have been allowed to carry their personal weapons as they were not on the job.

So at least 6 of the 9 shooters would not have been stopped without a citizen carrying a gun.



I'd count off duty and ex law enforcement and military differently than pure civilians. They've all received extensive training with their firearms, gone through rigorous background checks, and have training and experience in handling tense situations with criminals.
 
2013-09-18 02:01:12 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: I'd count off duty and ex law enforcement and military differently than pure civilians. They've all received extensive training with their firearms, gone through rigorous background checks, and have training and experience in handling tense situations with criminals.


i.imgur.com

Stop it. You're killing me. Tell another one, please!
 
2013-09-18 02:02:35 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Elegy: TuteTibiImperes: Tyee: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-tha t -were-stopped-by-someone-wit
9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally-Owned Firearm that the Mother Jones "study" pretended didn't happen or just ignored.

And of all of those only 3 were stopped by an actual non-military, non-law-enforcement, civilian.

Four that I count right off the bat: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8

1 was Myrick, who was the assistant principal at Pearl. While Myrick was a reserve officer, the gun he had, IIRC, was his personal weapon.

4 was Assam and the church shooting - he was a former police officer, but not one at the time of the shooting according to the linked article.

I think 7 and 9 should be included as well, since the police officers were off duty and carrying a firearm as a private citizens.

Unless you're suggesting we disqualify anyone from the list that has ever served in the military or police.

Which, quite frankly, is bullshiat.

I think you're trying to cherry pick the data in your favor (surprise surprise). Actively serving military and police, as well as former military and police, make up a good percentage of the CCW registry. They have a ccw because they want to carry as private citizens.

If we follow the logic of the anti-gun lobby, ccw would not be allowed - who needs it right? - and those off duty officers would not have been allowed to carry their personal weapons as they were not on the job.

So at least 6 of the 9 shooters would not have been stopped without a citizen carrying a gun.


I'd count off duty and ex law enforcement and military differently than pure civilians. They've all received extensive training with their firearms, gone through rigorous background checks, and have training and experience in handling tense situations with criminals.


Aaron Alexis was elite then.
 
2013-09-18 02:02:52 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: and have training and experience in handling tense situations with criminals.


So if someone was in the national guard you're fine with them having a gun in public then?  All the criminal training those guard guys get?  I got more tense situation training with a CCW permit but hey I'm sure you know what you're talking about.
 
2013-09-18 02:40:23 AM  
Meanwhile, five people were shot in isolated incidents in Chicago while this article was being written.  But those aren't "mass" shootings, the only kind the media cares about.
 
2013-09-18 02:45:52 AM  

kronicfeld: SauronWasFramed: Salon fail. Pearl MS was stopped by an Asst principal

The U.S. Army Reserve Commander assistant principal?


Pricipal caught sayof
 
2013-09-18 03:05:44 AM  

Mentat: NickelP: Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed.

Yeah.  It's usually the shooter killing himself.


This.
 
2013-09-18 03:11:25 AM  
feckingmorons: Thousands of times each month lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

Wow.... when you put it like that it really makes you think. What a shiat hole of a country you live in.

Seriously, instead of giving every farking nutjob out there an AR-15 and as much ammo as he can carry why don't you as a nation start taking on the root causes that make your citizens want to do harm to one another. Why is it that Americans keep saying "Yay! I have a gun" instead of "why the fark do I live in a country where I need to have a gun to feel safe".

Oh that American Exceptionalism.
 
2013-09-18 03:30:36 AM  
Am I the first liter? I am honored.
 
2013-09-18 03:35:08 AM  
Damn, if  you need to totally ingore facts to make your point, you probably shouldnt be making said point in absolutes.

It is asinine to say that no mass shootings have been stopped by an armed civilian when most people can think of at least one off of the top of their head.

It makes you a liar and no one listens except the full whackjobs who agree with you.  Even they shake their head and take it with a grain of salt.
 
2013-09-18 03:38:17 AM  

StopLurkListen: Am I the first liter? I am honored.


It's the calm before the next wave of derp. Get out while you can.
 
2013-09-18 03:40:03 AM  

Triumph: What a coincidence - not a single mass shooting was stopped by gun control laws.


THIS

What that saying about repeating the same mistakes?
 
2013-09-18 03:41:01 AM  
There are, roughly, as many civilian owned firearms in the USA as there are cell phones. It's hard to get exact numbers, but there are more cell phones and more firearms than there are people, so there are enough for everybody. Obviously not every man woman and child has a cell phone or a firearm, some people have several. Sleep well, America.
 
2013-09-18 03:44:23 AM  

2wolves: feckingmorons: 2wolves: Folks, U.S. citizens love their guns and love violence.  Until the culture changes you're pissing into the wind.

I don't carry a gun in Ireland because there is little gun crime there. I would venture that a similar percentage of Irish people own guns as in the US, the vast majority of them are shotguns. The same percentage of the population are armed, but Ireland doesn't have a culture of violence like we do in the US. Ireland has a culture that respects life. In Ireland there were 54 murders (not just gun related) in 2012. In Chicago there were that many gun crimes last month.

When the criminals stop murdering people in the US, I'll stop carrying a gun. Until then, the next time someone shoots at me I want to be able to shoot back.

Thank you for your rather long form agreement.


My takeaway from this thread?

feckingmorons likes to hear himself talk
 
2013-09-18 03:45:38 AM  

2wolves: Folks, U.S. citizens love their guns and love violence.  Until the culture changes you're pissing into the wind.


Australia managed. Similar "frontier" history, etc. But they got their sh-t together after *one* particularly awful mass shooting.

Of course we have cowardly politicians held hostage by threats, amongst other issues, so I doubt it'll happen here. Though it damn well should.
 
2013-09-18 03:45:42 AM  

feckingmorons: He however didn't shoot the gunman, the criminal fled after seeing the armed citizen.


Impossible to prove.

feckingmorons: Joseph Zamudio an armed citizen helped subdue the murderer in the Tucson shooting in which Representative Giffords was injured.


Not with a gun he didn't.
 
2013-09-18 03:45:44 AM  

dr_blasto: NickelP: Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed. Can you make us a case that any mass shooting was made worse by an armed civilian? And don't say the shooter dumbass

Wait wait wait. Hasn't just about every mass shooting ended by the shooter offing himself?


why are libtards so ignorant?
 
2013-09-18 03:46:25 AM  

feckingmorons: If I were there with my gun I would have herded people to shelter unless there was absolutely no other recourse but to shoot the criminal. I'm not keen on shooting people.


You were rubbing yourself when you typed that, weren't you?
 
2013-09-18 03:46:40 AM  

Tyee: TuteTibiImperes: Could be differing definitions on what counts as a mass shooting.

  The point is that the Mother Jones study is less about valid information than it is about spreading misinformation.


Yes, completely unlike the NRA :)
 
2013-09-18 03:47:06 AM  

StopLurkListen: Am I the first liter? I am honored.


Fly, you fools! This derp is beyond any of you!
 
2013-09-18 03:48:31 AM  
If nobody had any guns then one person with a gun could kill everyone.

People are crazy and that's why they all need guns.

Are cognitively dissociated yet?
 
2013-09-18 03:49:00 AM  
The Trolley Square shooting in Salt Lake was stopped by an off-duty policeman...which has nothing to do with the premise of citizens being in on the action, I know. Bear with me for a second.

Two years later, he was busted for a sexual offense with a 17-year-old girl while on duty. Which leads to my theory: if you stop a mass shooting (citizen or not), you will become a child molester. That should be good enough to enact some gun regulations right there.

/sorry
 
2013-09-18 03:49:44 AM  

feckingmorons: Hemenway


Quote: Since only 42% of U.S. households own firearms, and since victims in two thirds of the occupied dwellings were asleep,  the 2.5 million figure requires us to believe that burglary victims use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time.

Now what does it say about you that you still give this study enough credence to even bother mentioning it in the first place?


Even Hemenway's attempt to discredit Kleck's study shows that there are hundreds of thousands of civilian uses of firearms to prevent crime every year, even if we accept every possible statistical error that could be made.

The 200,000 number in Hemenway comes from a hypothetical example showing the extreme sensitivity of extrapolations to small errors in the surveying process using error rates that are completely made-up for purposes of illustration.

The fact that you interpreted the 200,000 as some kind of revised figure shows the math involved (basic first-semester college stats) just flew completely over your head.
 
2013-09-18 03:49:53 AM  

Chariset: The fantasy -- that if YOU had been there with your heroic gun, you would have shot the killer and saved everyone -- is for the moment still a fantasy.


If people start shooting, I am not going to try and stop an armed gun man, I am going to get the fark out of there as fast I can. I have no training or experience to confront that type of situation, even if I was armed.
 
2013-09-18 03:52:51 AM  

feckingmorons: 2wolves: Folks, U.S. citizens love their guns and love violence.  Until the culture changes you're pissing into the wind.

I don't carry a gun in Ireland because there is little gun crime there. I would venture that a similar percentage of Irish people own guns as in the US, the vast majority of them are shotguns. The same percentage of the population are armed, but Ireland doesn't have a culture of violence like we do in the US. Ireland has a culture that respects life. In Ireland there were 54 murders (not just gun related) in 2012. In Chicago there were that many gun crimes last month.

When the criminals stop murdering people in the US, I'll stop carrying a gun. Until then, the next time someone shoots at me I want to be able to shoot back.


Not sure where you're getting your numbers, first thing off the web says 84 murders in Ireland last year:

http://www.herald.ie/news/dublin-murder-rate-is-one-of-europes-highe st -27897137.html
 
2013-09-18 03:59:20 AM  

I_C_Weener: But nearly every week there is some story of a robbery or home invasion being stopped or partially stopped by defensive gun use.


Can you post one from say...this month? Difficulty: No NRA Links
 
2013-09-18 03:59:39 AM  
If you do the maths, the odds of being hit by a bullet is really low.  One quadrillion to one.
 
2013-09-18 04:01:00 AM  

feckingmorons: NewportBarGuy: NickelP: That's a risk one takes. Maybe a good one, maybe a bad one, but its pretty much theirs to take.

I'd totally agree with that. I'm pro CCW and pro-gun, to the point of mandating all sales go through an FFL. Period. No exceptions. For a CCW you need to have a clean mental health record and clear NCIC.

Anyone who is legally allowed to own and carry should have that right. I'm fine with that.

But, we have a glitch in the Matrix and we have to fix it. Mental Health records specifically. We have got to figure out a way to flag those purchases and prevent the sale. Call it a 7-10 day hold. Don't disclose any information to the seller, just tell them that the sale is denied pending review.

We went to the f*cking moon. I think we can figure something out.

Just before the Virginia Tech shooting, in which the murderer was so mentally ill that he should not own a gun, 22 states were reporting disqualified persons to the NCIC. The National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act was enacted to encourage states to meet their responsibilities about reporting those disqualified due to commitment or guardianships.

That has obviously failed to be of any significant help. Republican Senator Graham introduced the NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013 with bipartisan supporting co-sponsors. It has of course gone nowhere because our elected legislators are do nothing imbeciles.

This is an exceptionally good Bill, it clarifies exactly who must be reported as disqualified as well as including protections for people who may have previously been disqualified but because their medical problems have improved that they no longer present any danger from unjust disqualification.

We heard a lot of BS coming out of Washington, but this bill should have been pushed through despite the political posturing. It is a short Bill, read it and see if you don't agree with everything in it. Republicans, Democrats, Independents... who could possibly object to this ...



The NRA, obviously.   They CLAIM they want better mental health reporting, yet threaten (and succeed in) ousting politicians who actually propose such laws.  Your proposal has been part of federal law since 1968; who do you think blocked effective funding for the last forty years?

PETA?

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/4/colorado- me ntal-health-bill-full-of-problems-passes-house-committee-%281%29.aspx? s=%22mental+health%22&st=&ps=
 
2013-09-18 04:01:57 AM  
feckingmorons: When the criminals stop murdering people in the US, I'll stop carrying a gun.

Hmmm, so either Texas has to abolish the death penalty, or stop electing criminals governor...

Yeah, you're right.  We're screwed.
 
2013-09-18 04:05:03 AM  
 
2013-09-18 04:07:43 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: because i'm okay with universal background checks


Query: How would background checks have helped in this latest massacre, in which the guy got his guns from a Navy weapons cache and from the bodies of people he killed? Do they have a machine that does background checks before you can loot a corpse?
 
2013-09-18 04:10:21 AM  
feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

www.renegadepopo.com
  Thousands Tens of thousands of times each year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families kill themselves and each other with firearms.
api.ning.com
 
2013-09-18 04:10:28 AM  

untaken_name: Peter von Nostrand: because i'm okay with universal background checks

Query: How would background checks have helped in this latest massacre, in which the guy got his guns from a Navy weapons cache and from the bodies of people he killed? Do they have a machine that does background checks before you can loot a corpse?


Didn't he start with a shotgun?  Which he was licensed for, and probably shouldn't have been?

(I admit I haven't kept up with all the details here, I could be wrong.)
 
2013-09-18 04:10:28 AM  

NickelP: Interesting I will read up more on that. fyi iI'm not a pot head, been years since I touched that stuff. I do think its a bit of bullshiat and political vengeance to say someone that maybe has cancer and wants a joint so they can keep food down during chemo is mentally unstable and can't own guns. Way to kill a bill over something that has shiat to do with the subject at hand


It also means fewer people getting 'the card' (because they'll be on a list) or, flip side, they'll get the MJ card and buy their guns somewhere besides a licensed dealer. Hooray Government for encouraging the black market!
 
2013-09-18 04:11:15 AM  
If every citizen was required to hold a shotgun in one hand and an automatic weapon in the other at all times then there would be no crime.

That's what the Terminator and Rambo did, and they never got shot at.

Wait, what?
 
2013-09-18 04:12:32 AM  

Ghastly: "why the fark do I live in a country where I need to have a gun to feel safe".


Why do you equate feeling safe with being safe? They aren't connected. Someone can easily feel safe without being so, or be safe without feeling so. What importance does feeling safe have, compared to actually being safe? If ones stays in rural areas in the US, one has very, very little to actually fear. Cities are chock foll of actual danger, but people seem to feel safer there. One of life's little oddities.
 
2013-09-18 04:12:35 AM  
I dont know what disturbs me more. That this thing keeps on happening or that now we just let this kind of thing happen with a slight shrug without any talk of REASONABLE gun laws to placate the gun lobby and screechers.

You won guys, enjoy the fruits of your labor...Enjoy.
 
2013-09-18 04:14:48 AM  

MabalzIzari: http://conservativepost.com/armed-citizens-fight-crime-by-fighting-b ac k/


So, judging by the first clip in that video, society's only hope is fat, elderly men charging through crowded offices firing wildly in the general direction of a baddie?
 
2013-09-18 04:17:47 AM  

OrangeSnapper: feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[www.renegadepopo.com image 306x256]
  Thousands Tens of thousands of times each year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families kill themselves and each other with firearms.
[api.ning.com image 850x689]


Three times as many people kill themselves or others unintentionally with automobiles. Also, there are more than twice as many guns in the US as cars, yet cars are more than twice as deadly as guns. Ban assault vehicles!
 
2013-09-18 04:19:35 AM  
They sure start a lot of these shootings though.
 
2013-09-18 04:19:38 AM  
How could you possibly come up with the correct statistics for this since most mass shooting happen is a place where civilians aren't allowed to have firearms? Kinda throws the numbers
 
2013-09-18 04:20:43 AM  

untaken_name: cars are more than twice as deadly as guns


Per hour of operation?
 
2013-09-18 04:21:00 AM  

PunGent: The NRA, obviously. They CLAIM they want better mental health reporting, yet threaten (and succeed in) ousting politicians who actually propose such laws. Your proposal has been part of federal law since 1968; who do you think blocked effective funding for the last forty years?

 
We have the right to privacy in this country, as well as the presumption of innocence.


I'm not part of the NRA, and I don't own guns, but I do have an issue with people who think you should just drop your drawers any time the government says it's for safety.
 
2013-09-18 04:23:30 AM  

CujoQuarrel: How could you possibly come up with the correct statistics for this since most mass shooting happen is a place where civilians aren't allowed to have firearms? Kinda throws the numbers


No. Covered in TFA.
 
2013-09-18 04:25:36 AM  
How many of you don't care whether a fellow motorist has a valid driver's license or not?
 
2013-09-18 04:27:51 AM  

untaken_name: Peter von Nostrand: because i'm okay with universal background checks

Query: How would background checks have helped in this latest massacre, in which the guy got his guns from a Navy weapons cache and from the bodies of people he killed? Do they have a machine that does background checks before you can loot a corpse?


He started off with a shotgun, without that shotgun he doesn't loot bodies for more weapons. If the police had done their job he'd have lost his shotgun after calling them and complaining about hearing voices.

But you knew that.
 
2013-09-18 04:29:25 AM  

OrangeSnapper: feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[www.renegadepopo.com image 306x256]
  Thousands Tens of thousands of times each year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families kill themselves and each other with firearms.
[api.ning.com image 850x689]


Suicide is not a statistic you wanna bring up if you're anti gun. People want to die, they kill themselves. The method doesn't matter.

In Japan, the sucide rate is INSANE. It's high as the total US murder rate. And yet... not a firearm to be had without serious licensing. If you think firearms regulation will lower suicide rates, you're objectively and demonstratively wrong.
 
2013-09-18 04:33:43 AM  

doglover: People want to die, they kill themselves. The method doesn't matter.


Wrong.

And this isn't Japan.
 
2013-09-18 04:39:49 AM  
Here's a better question
"What percentage of those who have been the victims in mass shootings were unarmed?"
 
2013-09-18 04:42:09 AM  

Ghastly: feckingmorons: Thousands of times each month lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

Wow.... when you put it like that it really makes you think. What a shiat hole of a country you live in.

Seriously, instead of giving every farking nutjob out there an AR-15 and as much ammo as he can carry why don't you as a nation start taking on the root causes that make your citizens want to do harm to one another.


US violent crime rates isn't particularly high compared with other countries. The homicide/suicide rate is, because guns are so lethal.
 
2013-09-18 04:42:16 AM  

untaken_name: Ghastly: "why the fark do I live in a country where I need to have a gun to feel safe".

Why do you equate feeling safe with being safe? They aren't connected. Someone can easily feel safe without being so, or be safe without feeling so. What importance does feeling safe have, compared to actually being safe? If ones stays in rural areas in the US, one has very, very little to actually fear. Cities are chock foll of actual danger, but people seem to feel safer there. One of life's little oddities.


Ditto. Managed to live in the US for 44 years without needing to carry a gun to feel safe. Lived in the country, lived in the city, lived in the North, lived in the South, lived in freakin' Bed-Stuy before it got gentrified. If you need a gun to feel safe... a) grow a pair, and b) you need to realize, sad though it may be, that in most case, it's a safe assumption - and from a risk management perspective, the best assumption - that you are average, you are not Chow Yun-Fat in The Killer, you are not going to save somebody with your magical gun, and the person most likely to be killed with that gun is you, or someone you are close to. You may indeed at some point be confronted with an armed criminal. You also may become clinically depressed, or enraged by a cheating partner, or have a psychotic episode, or get really drunk or high - all of these things might happen. I'd bet the latter scenarios are more likely than the former - and a gun is going to hurt, not help, in those situations.

I must be a gun-grabber. I have owned guns in the past - your basics for a guy in the country, a .22, a .410 and a 12-gauge, but I do not now, living in a city in another country. Where I live, pretty much anyone can own a gun, but you have to have a background check, training, and you have to have a reason to own a gun. And self-defense is not considered a valid reason - the two generally recognized reasons are hunting and target shooting. And I think that is smart, and it reduces gun violence - because you have to keep guns locked up in a non-fireable state - trigger lock, or receiver or firing pin removed. So if you are depressed and want to off yourself, or if you're really mad at somebody because their lawn mower is too loud, or they looked at you funny, or you think they're up to no good in your neighborhood, you can't just grab a gun and fire it. Anyone who thinks they need a gun for self-defense will obviously keep it in a state where it can be accessed easily in a ready-to-fire state, or it would be useless for self-defense. So at the same time it's more available for accidentally shooting your foot, or your neighbor, or your child.

Go ahead - yell at me about the 2nd amendment, about some study in American Guntopia magazine that proves that owning a gun makes you 1000% safer and handsomer and awesomer. I believe in rational risk assessment and that tells me not to keep a gun on my person, or in my house.
 
2013-09-18 04:43:52 AM  

CujoQuarrel: How could you possibly come up with the correct statistics for this since most mass shooting happen is a place where civilians aren't allowed to have firearms? Kinda throws the numbers


liberal math
 
2013-09-18 04:51:52 AM  

Brainsick: I_C_Weener: But nearly every week there is some story of a robbery or home invasion being stopped or partially stopped by defensive gun use.

Can you post one from say...this month? Difficulty: No NRA Links


Weasel words: How do they work?
 
2013-09-18 04:53:47 AM  

doglover: OrangeSnapper: feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[www.renegadepopo.com image 306x256]
  Thousands Tens of thousands of times each year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families kill themselves and each other with firearms.
[api.ning.com image 850x689]

Suicide is not a statistic you wanna bring up if you're anti gun. People want to die, they kill themselves. The method doesn't matter.

In Japan, the sucide rate is INSANE. It's high as the total US murder rate. And yet... not a firearm to be had without serious licensing. If you think firearms regulation will lower suicide rates, you're objectively and demonstratively wrong.


Well to start with, the US suicide rate is over double the homicide rate. Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the US whereas murder is 16th. And if you want to know how banning something affects suicides, see the reduction rates in suicides after we moved away from gas stoves, which was one of the more popular methods of offing yourself. Course if we could magically eliminate all guns from the US, Canada, and Mexico our murder/suicide rate would be cut in half, and still higher than every other country.

So yes, banning guns would lower the homicide/suicide rate in the same way banning cars would reduce drunk driving. But what would you ban after that, or would we as a nation have reached the acceptable homicide/suicide rate?

As a side note, the recent CDC study on violence said that we could reduce rates of violence by up to 17% if we closed bars an hour earlier. But who wants to limit access to alcohol just to save lives?
 
2013-09-18 04:55:48 AM  
Nickel P:
Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed. Can you make us a case that any mass shooting was made worse by an armed civilian? And don't say the shooter dumbass

How about two days ago?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732466560457907703268189 9 414.html

Last year, two officers fired 16 times outside the Empire State building at a man, who had killed a co-worker.
Nine bystanders were hit, resulting in lawsuits against the NYPD.
 
2013-09-18 05:00:53 AM  
Well wait, when people were using private firearms and returning fire at Charles Whitman were the gun laws in Texas stricter or more relaxed?  Cause I mean if it's just the last 30 years, maybe we need to relax the gun laws more so people will shoot back more often?
 
2013-09-18 05:02:32 AM  
so statistics on wikipedia are the end all be all.


if this POS parent's had raised him right, the 12 victims would be breathing and so would his sorry ass.

Five to one, baby
One in five
No one here gets out alive, now
You get yours, baby
I'll get mine
Gonna make it, baby
If we try

The old get old
And the young get stronger
May take a week
And it may take longer
They got the guns
But we got the numbers
Gonna win, yeah
We're takin' over
Come on!
 
2013-09-18 05:02:52 AM  
in the past 200 years, not a single mass shooting has ever been stopped by a disarmed citizen either.

And typically, when an armed citizen stops a POTENTIAL situation, it never develops into a mass shooting. if it gets to the point it can be clarified as a "mass shooting" its already well past being stopped.
 
2013-09-18 05:04:07 AM  

feckingmorons: Yes, I am literally correct. My facts are correct, my assertion is valid and supported by evidence. Is there some better way to be correct?


theinfosphere.org
Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

/gun control means hitting your target
 
2013-09-18 05:04:13 AM  
I know everyone has a different opinion about this topic and I try to avoid getting into fights about it, but I will say this... I worked for a corporate law firm that represented gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers. You would not believe the kinds of cases nor the enormity of the caseload that these sorts of companies see. I'm sure  you can guess that the caseload's heavy, but I suspect that you have no idea just how heavy it is. Nor how ridiculous the stories are. (bullets regularly go through multiple walls injuring multiple people in the same home) We always hear about "responsible gun owners", but from what I've seen documented firsthand, I am willing to put money on it that the number of "responsible gun owners" is a small fraction of actual gun owners. That we institute some kind of safeguards to reduce the number of irresponsible gun owners is perfectly sensible to me. So many people worry about loss of life from other people with guns, when the statistics prove time and again that the gun in your own hand should be your biggest worry.
 
2013-09-18 05:07:54 AM  
found on the internet:
- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates - as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/it-true-armed-civilians-have-nev er -stopped-mass-shooting_690808.html
 
2013-09-18 05:10:33 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: doglover: People want to die, they kill themselves. The method doesn't matter.

Wrong.

And this isn't Japan.



In Japan, g is 9.8 m/ss at sea level. But america isn't japan so wear spiked shoes or you'll fly into space.
 
2013-09-18 05:12:11 AM  

433: DRTFA, DRTcomments.

A shooting at Smith County Courthouse in Texas was halted by a man with a sidearm.  The shooter had shot several people in the courthouse, several more outside.  A man with a concealed-carry license drew on him, and struck the shooter, mortally wounding him.  The shooter fatally shot the man firing at him, and fled in a pickup.  He wrecked the truck a distance later, dead.

This event may not be considered a mass shooting by some measures, but it was agreed by the witnesses that lives were saved by the man who shot the suspect, by drawing his attention (and fire) away.

I wouldn't expect Salon to consider my hometown of 100k in East Texas in their article. It's likely that the man with the concealed-carry would have been armed even had he been without the license, but really, I don't know.  He did, however make a heroic move against a man who was about to hurt other people.  Without a pistol, he may have rushed the guy, he was said to have been that sort of character.

The thrust of all this is the following: Men like him are the sort of person you want to have a concealed carry license.Determining that kind of character can't be done qualitatively by the government at the public level.  I don't know what to do about that.  However, when it is time for a man or woman to step up, I want that person to be there, in whatever manner they deem fit.


How about not having such a situation to occur to begin with?
 
2013-09-18 05:18:02 AM  
gun violence is bad. buying a gun LEGALLY should be hard. showing ID and fingerprints that can be traced. a waiting period to track your record.

just like voting should be.
 
2013-09-18 05:24:24 AM  

OrangeSnapper: feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[www.renegadepopo.com image 306x256]
  Thousands Tens of thousands of times each year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families kill themselves and each other with firearms.
[api.ning.com image 850x689]


Judging from your numbers, we should be outlawing motor vehicles and ladders before we get to firearms.  It's about saving lives, isn't it?

And don't get me started on cigarettes...
 
2013-09-18 05:26:04 AM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: gun violence is bad. buying a gun LEGALLY should be hard. showing ID and fingerprints that can be traced. a waiting period to track your record.

just like voting should be.


And getting a license to have a child.
 
2013-09-18 05:26:44 AM  

doglover: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: doglover: People want to die, they kill themselves. The method doesn't matter.

Wrong.

And this isn't Japan.


In Japan, g is 9.8 m/ss at sea level. But america isn't japan so wear spiked shoes or you'll fly into space.


Japan has high suicide rates without access to guns therefore the US suicide rate would not change if there were no guns.

That's some high quality DERP! right there.
 
2013-09-18 05:27:35 AM  
feckingmorons: Joseph Zamudio an armed citizen helped subdue the murderer in the Tucson shooting in which Representative Giffords was injured.

He also famously admitted that he almost shot one of the people trying to subdue the murderer.
 
2013-09-18 05:29:27 AM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: gun violence is bad. buying a gun LEGALLY should be hard. showing ID and fingerprints that can be traced. a waiting period to track your record.

just like voting should be.


If voting is hard, then those in power can make it harder for anyone opposing them to vote.

See: Grandfather clause, Poll Tax, Poll Test
 
2013-09-18 05:31:59 AM  
on the other hand quite a few starter by them though
 
2013-09-18 05:33:55 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: /i get called a gun grabber all the time because i'm okay with universal background checks


This right here sums up the "dialogue" entirely. There, as usual, two sides to the debate. On one side we have millions of people promoting intelligent gun reform and then the other side who pretty much exclusively lies about the first side and claims it just wants to "take away all guns." It's the only note the neoconservative movement has anymore, lie about everything to consistently thwart any social progress whatsoever.
 
2013-09-18 05:34:44 AM  
"In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"

Really?  Then what do you call all those mass shootings?
 
2013-09-18 05:37:31 AM  
An incredibly poorly researched Salon article with inflammatory rhetoric easily disproven?  Why I never heard of such a thing.

Why farkers still insist on posting the absolute garbage from that site I'll never know.

/stopped clicking those links back when a salon article told everyone that there was no way the Boston Marathon bombers could be muslims.
 
2013-09-18 05:55:13 AM  
I would just be happy if the criminally insane, felons and assorted, dangerous, crazy, psychotics could actually you know, have some trouble getting that machine gun. But nope, it's about as difficult as ordering a dildo on Amazon.com anymore.

It sucks too, your average gun show 15 years ago wasn't that crazy or insane an affair. Now? Its basically a white power rally where you can trade a bag of meth for an ar15.
 
2013-09-18 06:07:49 AM  

neongoats: It sucks too, your average gun show 15 years ago wasn't that crazy or insane an affair. Now? Its basically a white power rally where you can trade a bag of meth for an ar15.


I just went to one in VA.  It was the most polite, civil affair I have ever seen.  Then again, everyone was armed.  It's funny, they're kind of right that if everyone is aware of the real possibility of getting shot, most likely they will be more polite.  The problem lies in the fact that that shouldn't be a point of pride.
 
2013-09-18 06:09:25 AM  

VendorXeno: Peter von Nostrand: /i get called a gun grabber all the time because i'm okay with universal background checks

This right here sums up the "dialogue" entirely. There, as usual, two sides to the debate. On one side we have millions of people promoting intelligent gun reform and then the other side who pretty much exclusively lies about the first side and claims it just wants to "take away all guns." It's the only note the neoconservative movement has anymore, lie about everything to consistently thwart any social progress whatsoever.


You conveniently leave out the hoplophobes that don't think any civilian should have a gun.  Pretending they don't exist sort of hints at you being less in desire of intelligent gun reform and more along those lines.

We don't need gun reform. Background checks and mental health screenings, sure.  The latter should probably be worked into schools and apply to everyone, even non-gun buyers.  Then again, I feel the same way about vehicles, there are entirely too many shiatty drivers out there.

*shrugs*

My penny and a half.
 
2013-09-18 06:13:22 AM  
Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens

Pearl High School Link

Appalacian Law School Link

Muskegon Shooting Link


New Life Church Link

Santa Clara Gunshop Link

Aniston Shoney's Shooting Link

Golden Food Market Shooting Link

Early Texas Peach House Shooting Link.

AT&T store Link

College Park, GA, May 4, 2009.


College Park Link

Trolley Square Shooting Link

Winnemucca NV shooting, 25 May, 2008

Winnemuca Shooting Link

Parker Middle School Dance Shooting LinK

Destiny Christian Center Shooting, April 24, 2012

Destiny Christian Center Shooting LinK

Tyler Courthouse Shooting Link
 
2013-09-18 06:13:36 AM  

thamike: neongoats: It sucks too, your average gun show 15 years ago wasn't that crazy or insane an affair. Now? Its basically a white power rally where you can trade a bag of meth for an ar15.

I just went to one in VA.  It was the most polite, civil affair I have ever seen.  Then again, everyone was armed.  It's funny, they're kind of right that if everyone is aware of the real possibility of getting shot, most likely they will be more polite.  The problem lies in the fact that that shouldn't be a point of pride.


The last one I went to in Ohio(about a year ago) was a terrifying affair if you were anything but a Confederate Flag wielding(in a union state) crazy.(yes, I consider anyone flying a confederate flag as a crazy). So.. ymmv.
 
2013-09-18 06:14:25 AM  
Clackamas mall shooter faced man with concealed weapon. After killing 2, he saw the good guy with a gun and promptly killed himself.
 
2013-09-18 06:20:50 AM  

thamike: neongoats: It sucks too, your average gun show 15 years ago wasn't that crazy or insane an affair. Now? Its basically a white power rally where you can trade a bag of meth for an ar15.

I just went to one in VA.  It was the most polite, civil affair I have ever seen.  Then again, everyone was armed.  It's funny, they're kind of right that if everyone is aware of the real possibility of getting shot, most likely they will be more polite.  The problem lies in the fact that that shouldn't be a point of pride.


You know, it's not unlike when Christian fundies say that one can't behave morally without God. Like if you're not afraid of eternal punishment, you'll run amok in the streets. I guess the same goes for us being constantly armed to the teeth - it's the only possible way to remain polite. Otherwise, blammo, we all start attacking each other like fast zombies.

Unfortunately, the sort of person who is only kept from acting savagely by the knowledge that everyone around him is armed is EXACTLY who I do not want carrying a gun.
 
2013-09-18 06:25:24 AM  

Mentat: With two mass shootings at military installations, it's clear that we need to arm our soldiers.

'If We Had the Ammunition, We Could've Cleared that Building,' Son at Navy Yard Told Dad

Back in 1993, the Clinton administration virtually declared military establishments "gun-free zones." As a result, the policy banned "military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that 'a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel 'may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan," according to economist John Lott.

Additionally, Lott discovered that "every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns."

The answer is simple. Murderers pick places where they know their victims will be unarmed. It's time we debate having concealed carry on military bases. After all, there's no evidence showing that firearms owners are more irresponsible than the police, as Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund noted back in December of 2012:

"According to a 2005 to 2007 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University, police nationwide were convicted of firearms violations at least at a 0.002 percent annual rate. That's about the same rate as holders of carry permits in the states with 'shall issue' laws."

Use to be rifles were kept in the barracks with the Soldier/Marine:

img.fark.net

Now they are kept "secure" in what amount to a locked vault (a practice started before Clinton):

img.fark.net
 
2013-09-18 06:26:47 AM  

omeganuepsilon: You conveniently leave out the hoplophobes that don't think any civilian should have a gun. Pretending they don't exist sort of hints at you being less in desire of intelligent gun reform and more along those lines.


Just saying, but googling "hoplophobe" gives roughly the same results as if I'd googled "obamafascist gun grabbing nazi conspiracy liberals hate freedom transformer porn"...
 
2013-09-18 06:29:05 AM  

feckingmorons: What is the methodology of making up numbers of things that don't happen?


Work for Fox News.
 
2013-09-18 06:31:58 AM  
How gun owners see themselves:

mobiusband.com

The reality:

hellogiggles.com
 
2013-09-18 06:32:48 AM  

hasty ambush: Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens

Pearl High School Link

Appalacian Law School Link

Muskegon Shooting Link


New Life Church Link

Santa Clara Gunshop Link

Aniston Shoney's Shooting Link

Golden Food Market Shooting Link

Early Texas Peach House Shooting Link.

AT&T store Link

College Park, GA, May 4, 2009.


College Park Link

Trolley Square Shooting Link

Winnemucca NV shooting, 25 May, 2008

Winnemuca Shooting Link

Parker Middle School Dance Shooting LinK

Destiny Christian Center Shooting, April 24, 2012

Destiny Christian Center Shooting LinK

Tyler Courthouse Shooting Link


Well if the "Illinois Tactical Blog" says so that's good enough for me.
 
2013-09-18 06:37:59 AM  

hasty ambush: according to economist John Lott.


The same John Lott who ruined his academic career by fabricating research data to support a pro-gun agenda and is now reduced to making a living as a talking head on Fox?

Yeah, stopped reading there.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/02/09/lottethics/
http://web.archive.org/web/20110606235648/http:/www.cse.unsw.edu.au/ ~l ambert/guns/lindgren.html
 
2013-09-18 06:47:41 AM  
Seems we've decided that we'll have this pointless conversation, which solves nothing, every few months or years when some deranged asshole shoots a bunch of people with guns he should have never been allowed to purchase legally... Whatever.

I've owned firearms since I was 18. Was taught how to shoot and be safe with a rifle by my grandfather when I was 12, but honestly, theses days I really want nothing to do with the most vocal of "gun advocates" or their politics. In fact, most of the folks I've heard defending my right to own a firearm disgust me.
 
2013-09-18 06:49:22 AM  

SauronWasFramed: Salon fail. Pearl MS was stopped by an Asst principal


I was more bothered by the "highly trained New York City police officers who discharged their guns in public hit their intended targets only 34 percent of the time"


And I am for background checks for all guns, as well as govt or FFL's tracking all gun sales. As law as expediency and cheapness are built into the law.
 
2013-09-18 06:52:34 AM  
Mass shootings almost always occur in legally-mandated gun-free zones. Law-abiding civilians don't bring guns there.

Was Floyd Corkins stopped by armed civilians? I can't remember. Corkins was the only politically-motivated mass murder (albeit prevented) in more than 10 years -- he was a gay marriage advocate. He had something like 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches with him, which he planned to smear in his victims' faces.

Clearly, left-wing political activists, inspired by the SPLC's list of designated "hate groups," pose the 21st century's biggest political mass-shooting threat.
 
2013-09-18 06:58:41 AM  

omeganuepsilon: You conveniently leave out the hoplophobes that don't think any civilian should have a gun. Pretending they don't exist sort of hints at you being less in desire of intelligent gun reform and more along those lines.


Hoplophobes? You mean like most of the rest of the civilised world? Where (weirdly enough) these mass shootings seem to be a lot less frequent?
 
2013-09-18 06:59:36 AM  

Cagey B: feckingmorons: Not a single house burned down when an extinguisher was used to put out a small kitchen fire. That follows the same logic.

That's not "logic". That's "retarded grasping". Fire starts in a house. Person sprays it with fire extinguisher. Problem solved. The analogous situation would be person starts shooting the place up, Heroic Armed Republican Citizen then shoots maniac, problem solved. There seems to be a lack of cases of the latter happening.

feckingmorons: If an armed citizen stops a criminal before we have a mass shooting then we don't have a mass shooting.

Oh boy. Yes, please keep going in that direction. Double down.

feckingmorons: Thousands of times each month lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[citation needed]


That's an easy citation to provide. Even the most skeptical estimates puts that number at about 8200 times per months with the average guesstimates at over twice that.

Mass shooting are so rare and usually happen at places that don't allow public carry. Many businesses don't allow employees to carry at work, and forget about it at a school. You should also immediately discount any shooting in a state that openly discourages carrying, like California, DC , etc.

i have no reason to doubt Salons particular argument based on statistical probability. However, that doesn't mean that personal weapons aren't used all the time for self defense.

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-us e -guns-in-self-defense

The more you know.
 
2013-09-18 07:07:12 AM  
That is because they stopped it before it became a mass shooting.
 
2013-09-18 07:07:51 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: CujoQuarrel: How could you possibly come up with the correct statistics for this since most mass shooting happen is a place where civilians aren't allowed to have firearms? Kinda throws the numbers

No. Covered in TFA.


You mean the article that spouts bogus info about gunmen being stopped by armed citizens?

The article that repeats a claim about the shooter "reportedly" having an AR-15, even though at the time of publication it was known that he didn't?

That article? That article is also wrong about where most mass shootings take place.
 
2013-09-18 07:10:06 AM  
The more restrictions placed on guns, other contraband, and etc the more powerful organized crime becomes. Its no different from how black market abortion clinics flourished in the past. If anything all children should receive education on firearms and the dangers of them. A firearms free zone is nothing but a target to these crazies.
 
2013-09-18 07:13:33 AM  
The fact that most mass shootings occur at locations where the carrying of firearms is illegal wasn't considered?  How could anyone stop the Navy Yard shooting when -- and I can't believe I'm typing this -- people in the military there are NOT allowed to be armed!!!

Thanks Klintoon.
 
2013-09-18 07:14:18 AM  

SauronWasFramed: kronicfeld: SauronWasFramed: Salon fail. Pearl MS was stopped by an Asst principal

The U.S. Army Reserve Commander assistant principal?

The guy was not in uniform, was he. I suppose if you have to lie like Mother Jones did, facts don't matter.

Nor does the fact that he had to sprint to his car that was parked off campus. Why? Because he would have been arrested for doing so.

As it stands, he had to sprint back and stopped the shooter while he was reloading.




So the shooting took place anyway. Got it. The MJ article got it right; no mass shooters were stopped from killing people by another armed citizen. But that won't stop the gun nuts from claiming they have.
 
2013-09-18 07:17:02 AM  
 
2013-09-18 07:17:37 AM  

Maledeus: The more restrictions placed on guns, other contraband, and etc the more powerful organized crime becomes. Its no different from how black market abortion clinics flourished in the past. If anything all children should receive education on firearms and the dangers of them. A firearms free zone is nothing but a target to these crazies.


Yup, that's why Norway here is run by the gun running gangs from Finland... or something.
 
2013-09-18 07:18:30 AM  

Brainsick: I_C_Weener: But nearly every week there is some story of a robbery or home invasion being stopped or partially stopped by defensive gun use.

Can you post one from say...this month? Difficulty: No NRA Links


How about a simple Google News search? 

A witness told police that Stevens fired first and Rozgonyi returned fire

Kansas City home owner shoots, kills intruder with shotgun

Would-be robber fatally shot by homeowner

With wife and baby upstairs, Northland homeowner fatally shoots intruder

Missouri Liquor Store Clerk, Veteran, Pulls Gun on Armed Robber

Robbery victim: 'Instead of pulling my wallet, I pulled my gun'

I could probably pull a couple dozen more from the last month if I looked harder.
 
2013-09-18 07:19:32 AM  
Why is it that all of them start out with 3 shooters.  Then there is only 1.  That one is either dead or so drug addled so that he cannot speak.
 
2013-09-18 07:19:54 AM  

Bendal: SauronWasFramed: kronicfeld: SauronWasFramed: Salon fail. Pearl MS was stopped by an Asst principal

The U.S. Army Reserve Commander assistant principal?

The guy was not in uniform, was he. I suppose if you have to lie like Mother Jones did, facts don't matter.

Nor does the fact that he had to sprint to his car that was parked off campus. Why? Because he would have been arrested for doing so.

As it stands, he had to sprint back and stopped the shooter while he was reloading.

So the shooting took place anyway. Got it. The MJ article got it right; no mass shooters were stopped from killing people by another armed citizen. But that won't stop the gun nuts from claiming they have.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MYUdPrs2Ls
 
2013-09-18 07:20:05 AM  
FTFA      The fact is that 12 more Americans are dead because of the all-too-easy availability of dangerous weapons to dangerous people.  This statement is a mass killing for all other statements in this article.
 
2013-09-18 07:23:26 AM  

GreenAdder: [i.imgur.com image 300x562]

[i.imgur.com image 440x324]


Pawn to Queen four.
 
2013-09-18 07:25:41 AM  
They're pretty good at picking the wrong target though.
 
2013-09-18 07:34:04 AM  
Isn't the headline blatently retarded?  If it was stopped it didn't become a mass shooting.
 
2013-09-18 07:34:28 AM  

SmackLT: Brainsick: I_C_Weener: But nearly every week there is some story of a robbery or home invasion being stopped or partially stopped by defensive gun use.

Can you post one from say...this month? Difficulty: No NRA Links

How about a simple Google News search?
A witness told police that Stevens fired first and Rozgonyi returned fire

Kansas City home owner shoots, kills intruder with shotgun

Would-be robber fatally shot by homeowner

With wife and baby upstairs, Northland homeowner fatally shoots intruder

Missouri Liquor Store Clerk, Veteran, Pulls Gun on Armed Robber

Robbery victim: 'Instead of pulling my wallet, I pulled my gun'

I could probably pull a couple dozen more from the last month if I looked harder.


Obvious paid NRA shills.

Sarcasm aside people in this day and age who still try and pretend that robberies and home invasions aren't routinely stopped with guns are as bad as the people who think the UN is going to take their guns.
 
2013-09-18 07:39:15 AM  

Ghastly: feckingmorons: Thousands of times each month lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

Wow.... when you put it like that it really makes you think. What a shiat hole of a country you live in.

Seriously, instead of giving every farking nutjob out there an AR-15 and as much ammo as he can carry why don't you as a nation start taking on the root causes that make your citizens want to do harm to one another. Why is it that Americans keep saying "Yay! I have a gun" instead of "why the fark do I live in a country where I need to have a gun to feel safe".

Oh that American Exceptionalism.


That's been one of the points I've tried to make multiple times.  It's like we looked at the Cold War arms race and the rise of MAD as a means of security and thought 'wow, we should implement that at the household level!'.
 
2013-09-18 07:44:26 AM  

manimal2878: Isn't the headline blatently retarded?  If it was stopped it didn't become a mass shooting.


Right.  Just like how the fact that no one's ever found any evidence of a scandal involving Benghazi proves the existence of a massive coverup.
 
2013-09-18 07:54:14 AM  
Headline is misleading.  Should read:   In the past 30 years every single mass shooting occurred by mentally deranged people.
 
2013-09-18 07:56:39 AM  

Mentat: With two mass shootings at military installations, it's clear that we need to arm our soldiers.


I never understood why people think that everyone on a military base is walking around with their assigned firearm. There are firearms lockers and folks need a reason to carry firearms around base. It's been that way for decades.
 
2013-09-18 07:59:44 AM  

legion_of_doo: PunGent: The NRA, obviously. They CLAIM they want better mental health reporting, yet threaten (and succeed in) ousting politicians who actually propose such laws. Your proposal has been part of federal law since 1968; who do you think blocked effective funding for the last forty years?

We have the right to privacy in this country, as well as the presumption of innocence.


I'm not part of the NRA, and I don't own guns, but I do have an issue with people who think you should just drop your drawers any time the government says it's for safety.


Yes, we have both those things.  Do YOU think mentally ill folks should have guns?  Even our founding fathers supported mad houses with their taxes...and for damned sure took away the guns of those incarcerated therein.

Personally, I apply the golden rule here:  If I went nuts, I'd hope nobody would sell ME a gun.

Yes, it's an infringement on my Second Amendment rights...but it's one I can live with.

NO rights are absolute, and, if you think about it, they mostly shouldn't be, if you want a functioning society of more than one person.
 
2013-09-18 08:00:08 AM  

gocary50: FTFA      The fact is that 12 more Americans are dead because of the all-too-easy availability of dangerous weapons to dangerous people.  This statement is a mass killing for all other statements in this article.


How many people are alive today because of the availabity of a gun for defensive use? More than 12.

How many deaths would be prevented by a national speed limit of 3 mph? A lot more than 12. As a bonus, a speed limit change would not violate people's Constitutional right to firearms, nor would it infringe on their basic human right to self-defense.
 
2013-09-18 08:00:49 AM  
Yes, thank you very much anti-gun people who insist anyone who wants to carry a firearm must be some sort of paranoid idiot so it's only reasonable that nobody carry guns. Thank you very much people who freak out and call the cops when people openly carry guns where it is legal to do so.

We couldn't create target rich environments in which nobody can fight back without you.
 
2013-09-18 08:01:29 AM  

Fista-Phobia: How many of you don't care whether a fellow motorist has a valid driver's license or not?


Having had my car dented by an unlicensed hit-and-run guy a few years back near the Tappan Zee bridge, I care.
 
2013-09-18 08:03:43 AM  

Phinn: gocary50: FTFA      The fact is that 12 more Americans are dead because of the all-too-easy availability of dangerous weapons to dangerous people.  This statement is a mass killing for all other statements in this article.

How many people are alive today because of the availabity of a gun for defensive use? More than 12.

How many deaths would be prevented by a national speed limit of 3 mph? A lot more than 12. As a bonus, a speed limit change would not violate people's Constitutional right to firearms, nor would it infringe on their basic human right to self-defense.


It's almost like there is some difference between a gun massacre and a traffic accident.
 
2013-09-18 08:04:22 AM  

feckingmorons: I also carry it because it annoys people who want to deny me that right.


Got to stick it to the LIBS!

That's why so many voted for Hitler, too!
 
2013-09-18 08:06:54 AM  

doglover: OrangeSnapper: feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[www.renegadepopo.com image 306x256]
  Thousands Tens of thousands of times each year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families kill themselves and each other with firearms.
[api.ning.com image 850x689]

Suicide is not a statistic you wanna bring up if you're anti gun. People want to die, they kill themselves. The method doesn't matter.

In Japan, the sucide rate is INSANE. It's high as the total US murder rate. And yet... not a firearm to be had without serious licensing. If you think firearms regulation will lower suicide rates, you're objectively and demonstratively wrong.


jackass also provided a graph that counts only incidents that resulted in death, thereby leaving out the majority of all incidents...
 
2013-09-18 08:07:26 AM  

randomjsa: Yes, thank you very much anti-gun people who insist anyone who wants to carry a firearm must be some sort of paranoid idiot so it's only reasonable that nobody carry guns. Thank you very much people who freak out and call the cops when people openly carry guns where it is legal to do so.

We couldn't create target rich environments in which nobody can fight back without you.


Personally, I think if you want to carry a firearm when you're not hunting or on the firing range, you are indeed some kind of paranoid idiot, and you're putting us all in danger by having a deadly bang stick on you for no good reason. A bunch of people walking around is not a TARGET RICH ENVIRONMENT unless you are a paranoid idiot and you see normal people walking around as A BUNCH OF TARGETS.
 
2013-09-18 08:12:05 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Phinn: gocary50: FTFA      The fact is that 12 more Americans are dead because of the all-too-easy availability of dangerous weapons to dangerous people.  This statement is a mass killing for all other statements in this article.

How many people are alive today because of the availabity of a gun for defensive use? More than 12.

How many deaths would be prevented by a national speed limit of 3 mph? A lot more than 12. As a bonus, a speed limit change would not violate people's Constitutional right to firearms, nor would it infringe on their basic human right to self-defense.

It's almost like there is some difference between a gun massacre and a traffic accident.


Yeah, the difference is that traffic deaths occur almost entirely on government property, where government organizations enforce the government's rules, as people drive cars that are built to government safety standards.

If any other property owner had that level of control over the people who die on their premises, and it kept happening about 80 or 90 times per day, there'd be some changes made, I think.

Changes that don't happen to also violate Constituional rights.
 
2013-09-18 08:14:50 AM  

Shostie: [i.imgur.com image 239x300]


For a second I thought it was a raptor claw feeding Jesus popcorn.

/I require more coffee.
 
2013-09-18 08:15:02 AM  

Carl Scroot: Well if the "Illinois Tactical Blog" says so that's good enough for me.


As opposed to the firearm experts at Salon.com
 
2013-09-18 08:17:41 AM  

Phinn: Yeah, the difference is that traffic deaths occur almost entirely on government property, where government organizations enforce the government's rules, as people drive cars that are built to government safety standards.


Hmm, so stricter automotive safety standards to go along with our reasonable gun restrictions you say? Sounds reasonable.  Let's see what our freedom-loving, free market, regulation-hating friends in the tea party have to say about that...
 
2013-09-18 08:20:08 AM  

liam76: Sarcasm aside people in this day and age who still try and pretend that robberies and home invasions aren't routinely stopped with guns are as bad as the people who think the UN is going to take their guns.


Guns CAN be used to stop crime.
Guns can also be used to commit them.

How many crimes were prevented because the gun owner had larger magazines?
How many crimes were prevented because the gun owner had an 'assault weapon'?
How many crimes were prevented because the gun owner skipped a background check?

There is room for reasonable gun regulations and crime prevention as well.
 
2013-09-18 08:24:20 AM  
Good thing the claim has been debunked or the 2nd amendment would be automatically void and nobody could own a gun for self-protection any more.

dookdookdook: manimal2878: Isn't the headline blatently retarded?  If it was stopped it didn't become a mass shooting.

Right.  Just like how the fact that no one's ever found any evidence of a scandal involving Benghazi proves the existence of a massive coverup.


The government telling tales they knew to be lies for days or weeks isn't a scandal?  Pretty sure we've heard and read the evidence.  CNN has a timeline if you need it.  After everyone knew the youtube video claim was bogus, Hilbillary Clinton told a dead marine's father we would do everything in our power to get the mean old youtube video maker - and we did.  Not scandalous at all?  "Scandal" doesn't mean someone necessarily gets fired or goes to jail.  They might just get a little red in the face - which is quite a reaction for someone with the conscience of an attorney.
 
2013-09-18 08:24:33 AM  

hasty ambush: Carl Scroot: Well if the "Illinois Tactical Blog" says so that's good enough for me.

As opposed to the firearm experts at Salon.com


Your ambushes have all been rather hasty as of late, maybe its time to sit down and plan one out.
 
2013-09-18 08:27:36 AM  

NewportBarGuy: But, we have a glitch in the Matrix and we have to fix it. Mental Health records specifically. We have got to figure out a way to flag those purchases and prevent the sale. Call it a 7-10 day hold. Don't disclose any information to the seller, just tell them that the sale is denied pending review.


There was a proposal in Obamacare that would have started a national medical record data base, so that if you were admitted to a hospital or seen anywhere in the country by a doctor, all your information would be easily accessible.  It also would have been perfectly for flagging the mentally ill, among other things.

It was the first part of the package to be thrown out.
 
2013-09-18 08:29:06 AM  

doglover: In Japan, the sucide rate is INSANE. It's high as the total US murder rate.


Might be a simpler reason for that.

Pulled out a knife where the cops saw it? Suicide. Embarrassed her family so they stabbed her to death? Suicide. Tried to sing a Sinatra song at a karaoke bar? You'd better believe that's a suicide.
 
2013-09-18 08:29:43 AM  

Mentat: NickelP: Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed.

Yeah.  It's usually the shooter killing himself.


When someone with a gun shows up and ruins their fun.

(Recent shooting excluded because part of his plan was to "upgrade")
 
2013-09-18 08:31:49 AM  

kronicfeld: SauronWasFramed: Salon fail. Pearl MS was stopped by an Asst principal

The U.S. Army Reserve Commander assistant principal?


Do I count as a civilian or ex military? Can I be both?
 
2013-09-18 08:32:09 AM  

dookdookdook: Phinn: Yeah, the difference is that traffic deaths occur almost entirely on government property, where government organizations enforce the government's rules, as people drive cars that are built to government safety standards.

Hmm, so stricter automotive safety standards to go along with our reasonable gun restrictions you say? Sounds reasonable.  Let's see what our freedom-loving, free market, regulation-hating friends in the tea party have to say about that...


The roads are not a free-market area. They are the State's property. The scope of government authority in that context can't get any higher.

Yet while simple life-saving measures are ignored, which could be easily and effectively enforced, and would quickly reduce the 35,000 or so annual road deaths, in a context where the State already has plenary authority, there is a huge political push, by the Left, to exercise control over a new facet of life, which is Constitutionally off-limits, virtually impossible to enforce, all to (supposedly) respond to dangers that pose a far smaller threat to innocent life, and which would also result in an increase in people's vulnerability to violent crime.

In light of these facts, you should not be surprised when people conclude that gun control proponents are untrustworthy and acting in bad faith.
 
2013-09-18 08:35:14 AM  

SmackLT: Brainsick: I_C_Weener: But nearly every week there is some story of a robbery or home invasion being stopped or partially stopped by defensive gun use.

Can you post one from say...this month? Difficulty: No NRA Links

How about a simple Google News search? 

A witness told police that Stevens fired first and Rozgonyi returned fire

Kansas City home owner shoots, kills intruder with shotgun

Would-be robber fatally shot by homeowner

With wife and baby upstairs, Northland homeowner fatally shoots intruder

Missouri Liquor Store Clerk, Veteran, Pulls Gun on Armed Robber

Robbery victim: 'Instead of pulling my wallet, I pulled my gun'

I could probably pull a couple dozen more from the last month if I looked harder.


Of course, the other side of this coin to this is that it REALLY debunks the theory that gun-toting civilians prevents crime, it simply rewards you with a greater sense of vengeance against the criminal.

if I see someone in my mirror flying up the expressway at 100 mph cutting people off left-and-right, can I "defensively drive" into his path cutting him off, with the hopes that he'll wipe out? That's sort of the vibe I'm getting here.
 
2013-09-18 08:35:38 AM  

badhatharry: Bendal: SauronWasFramed: kronicfeld: SauronWasFramed: Salon fail. Pearl MS was stopped by an Asst principal

The U.S. Army Reserve Commander assistant principal?

The guy was not in uniform, was he. I suppose if you have to lie like Mother Jones did, facts don't matter.

Nor does the fact that he had to sprint to his car that was parked off campus. Why? Because he would have been arrested for doing so.

As it stands, he had to sprint back and stopped the shooter while he was reloading.

So the shooting took place anyway. Got it. The MJ article got it right; no mass shooters were stopped from killing people by another armed citizen. But that won't stop the gun nuts from claiming they have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MYUdPrs2Ls


From the actual Mother Jones article: "We excluded cases involving armed robberies or gang violence; dropping the number of fatalities by just one, or including those motives, would add many, many more cases. (More about our criteria here.)"
 
2013-09-18 08:36:55 AM  

NewportBarGuy: NickelP: That's a risk one takes. Maybe a good one, maybe a bad one, but its pretty much theirs to take.

I'd totally agree with that. I'm pro CCW and pro-gun, to the point of mandating all sales go through an FFL. Period. No exceptions. For a CCW you need to have a clean mental health record and clear NCIC.

Anyone who is legally allowed to own and carry should have that right. I'm fine with that.

But, we have a glitch in the Matrix and we have to fix it. Mental Health records specifically. We have got to figure out a way to flag those purchases and prevent the sale. Call it a 7-10 day hold. Don't disclose any information to the seller, just tell them that the sale is denied pending review.

We went to the f*cking moon. I think we can figure something out.


You would need to have a government appointed Mental Health Judge.  Imagine the can of worms that opens.
 
2013-09-18 08:37:40 AM  

dookdookdook: manimal2878: Isn't the headline blatently retarded?  If it was stopped it didn't become a mass shooting.

Right.  Just like how the fact that no one's ever found any evidence of a scandal involving Benghazi proves the existence of a massive coverup.


I'm talking about what defines a mass shooting, you are talking about something stupid.
 
2013-09-18 08:38:18 AM  

Big_Fat_Liar: The government telling tales they knew to be lies for days or weeks isn't a scandal? Pretty sure we've heard and read the evidence. CNN has a timeline if you need it. After everyone knew the youtube video claim was bogus, Hilbillary Clinton told a dead marine's father we would do everything in our power to get the mean old youtube video maker - and we did. Not scandalous at all? "Scandal" doesn't mean someone necessarily gets fired or goes to jail. They might just get a little red in the face - which is quite a reaction for someone with the conscience of an attorney.


See.
 
2013-09-18 08:38:28 AM  

Deep Contact: Clackamas mall shooter faced man with concealed weapon. After killing 2, he saw the good guy with a gun and promptly killed himself.


Absolutely no evidence shooter saw your good guy.
 
2013-09-18 08:39:13 AM  

Without Fail: liam76: Sarcasm aside people in this day and age who still try and pretend that robberies and home invasions aren't routinely stopped with guns are as bad as the people who think the UN is going to take their guns.

Guns CAN be used to stop crime.
Guns can also be used to commit them.

How many crimes were prevented because the gun owner had larger magazines?
How many crimes were prevented because the gun owner had an 'assault weapon'?

How many crimes were prevented because the gun owner skipped a background check?

There is room for reasonable gun regulations and crime prevention as well.


I am for universal background checks and tracking the sale of all guns.

But the bolded above aren't reasonable.
You are going after things because you fear or don't understand them.
Larger magazines have no correlation to 99.9% of gun violence. "Assault weapons" is a meaningless term, and laws based off it boil down to "looks scary".
Mkaing a law limiting the rights of others because you don't think they need it based off flimsy claims of safety gains isn't reasonable.


/doesn't own an "assault weapon" doesn't own a "large capacity magazine"
 
2013-09-18 08:39:23 AM  
Salon Fail: If it was prevented, it wasn't a "mass shooting" and, therefore, there's no way to confirm or disprove it would have happened.

derpity herp
 
2013-09-18 08:41:05 AM  

Big_Fat_Liar: The government telling tales they knew to be lies for days or weeks isn't a scandal? Pretty sure we've heard and read the evidence. CNN has a timeline if you need it. After everyone knew the youtube video claim was bogus, Hilbillary Clinton told a dead marine's father we would do everything in our power to get the mean old youtube video maker - and we did. Not scandalous at all? "Scandal" doesn't mean someone necessarily gets fired or goes to jail. They might just get a little red in the face - which is quite a reaction for someone with the conscience of an attorney.


Seriously?  Is that really it?  I mean, I know I don't pay much attention so I don't consider myself fully infromed on the matter, but is this really the totality of what the Fox/Rove crowd is red-faced in outrage over?  Someone may or may not have went on a political talk show and said something not exactly true for some unknown political reason?  Has there been a single day in the history of political talk shows when that didn't happen?

And Hillary tried to comfort a grieving father?  OH THE OUTRAGE!

How many millions of taxpayer dollars has Darryl Issa wastedwisely spent unearthing these egregious acts of treason and terror?
 
2013-09-18 08:46:07 AM  

OrangeSnapper: feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[www.renegadepopo.com image 306x256]


If all defensive uses of firearms resulted in death, your graph would constitute a meaningful rebuttal. However, they do not, so yours is not.
 
2013-09-18 08:47:13 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Deep Contact: Clackamas mall shooter faced man with concealed weapon. After killing 2, he saw the good guy with a gun and promptly killed himself.

Absolutely no evidence shooter saw your good guy.


The good guy says he did.
 
2013-09-18 08:47:18 AM  

nickerj1: NewportBarGuy: NickelP: That's a risk one takes. Maybe a good one, maybe a bad one, but its pretty much theirs to take.

I'd totally agree with that. I'm pro CCW and pro-gun, to the point of mandating all sales go through an FFL. Period. No exceptions. For a CCW you need to have a clean mental health record and clear NCIC.

Anyone who is legally allowed to own and carry should have that right. I'm fine with that.

But, we have a glitch in the Matrix and we have to fix it. Mental Health records specifically. We have got to figure out a way to flag those purchases and prevent the sale. Call it a 7-10 day hold. Don't disclose any information to the seller, just tell them that the sale is denied pending review.

We went to the f*cking moon. I think we can figure something out.

You would need to have a government appointed Mental Health Judge.  Imagine the can of worms that opens.


You could have trained psychologists/psychiatrists do it, the application gets flagged, a mental health professional enrolled in the government program contacts the applicant and requests a meeting if they would like to continue their purchase, and they come in for a session (or more if the professional believes it's necessary) who then makes the ruling on if the sale goes through or not.  The government could just contract the work out to local psychologists/psychiatrists in the area who go through a screening process to supply and work as independent contractors.

If the applicant is denied there could be an appeals process that brings the issue up before a judge.
 
2013-09-18 08:51:59 AM  
I've had a background check done with every gun I have purchased. I'm not cRaZy, mY mOM hAd ME TeSTed!
 
2013-09-18 08:54:38 AM  

Boo Radley: Ghastly: feckingmorons: Thousands of times each month lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

Wow.... when you put it like that it really makes you think. What a shiat hole of a country you live in.

Seriously, instead of giving every farking nutjob out there an AR-15 and as much ammo as he can carry why don't you as a nation start taking on the root causes that make your citizens want to do harm to one another.

US violent crime rates isn't particularly high compared with other countries. The homicide/suicide rate is, because guns are so lethal.


The suicide rate of the United States of America is not notably high as compared to other developed nations. Several other such nations -- including France, Belgium and Austria -- experience a higher suicide rate, while other nations -- including Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom -- have a suicide rate lower than that of the United States of America by less than 1 per 100,000 people.

The claim that increasing restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership (especially through bans on popular civilian sporting rifles) would substantially decrease the overall suicide rate is not supported by evidence.
 
2013-09-18 08:55:31 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: You could have trained psychologists/psychiatrists do it, the application gets flagged, a mental health professional enrolled in the government program contacts the applicant and requests a meeting if they would like to continue their purchase, and they come in for a session (or more if the professional believes it's necessary) who then makes the ruling on if the sale goes through or not. The government could just contract the work out to local psychologists/psychiatrists in the area who go through a screening process to supply and work as independent contractors.

If the applicant is denied there could be an appeals process that brings the issue up before a judge


And there is the problem.

Don't get me wrong I am for universal background check, and there hsoudl be a mechanism to raise red flags for mental health, but if soem guy is going to make more money by saying a person is nuts, it won't work.
 
2013-09-18 08:56:34 AM  
ok, so now what should be done with that information?
 
2013-09-18 08:56:38 AM  

Brainsick: I_C_Weener: But nearly every week there is some story of a robbery or home invasion being stopped or partially stopped by defensive gun use.

Can you post one from say...this month? Difficulty: No NRA Links


Here's two:

Suspect killed after carjacking man at Red Box


Home intruder shot, dies
 
2013-09-18 08:57:14 AM  

liam76: TuteTibiImperes: You could have trained psychologists/psychiatrists do it, the application gets flagged, a mental health professional enrolled in the government program contacts the applicant and requests a meeting if they would like to continue their purchase, and they come in for a session (or more if the professional believes it's necessary) who then makes the ruling on if the sale goes through or not. The government could just contract the work out to local psychologists/psychiatrists in the area who go through a screening process to supply and work as independent contractors.

If the applicant is denied there could be an appeals process that brings the issue up before a judge

And there is the problem.

Don't get me wrong I am for universal background check, and there hsoudl be a mechanism to raise red flags for mental health, but if soem guy is going to make more money by saying a person is nuts, it won't work.


Assuming they're paid the same amount for the exam regardless of the outcome, it shouldn't provide any incentive to deny people who aren't in a dangerous mental state.
 
2013-09-18 09:00:46 AM  
Without Fail:
Guns CAN be used to stop crime.
Guns can also be used to commit them.


Its almost like they are a tool, which is neither good nor evil, but reflects only the intent of the user.

How many crimes were prevented because the gun owner had larger magazines?
Larger than what? Factory standard?

How many crimes were prevented because the gun owner had an 'assault weapon'?
First give me a definition for an 'assault weapon' so I can answer that.

How many crimes were prevented because the gun owner skipped a background check?
I don't think you can even tie the two events together via causality, but whatever.

There is room for reasonable gun regulations and crime prevention as well.
Oh, you just want to ban guns.

Thats cool - I mean me, personally, I'd rather attack the socioeconomic reasons for crime. Dealer Dan is going to kill Rival Randy for control of the crack corner, not because of the presence of a gun. We need to spend resources on ending the Drug War, reform our justice system to focus on rehabilitation, remove systemic racism (from everything), improve our education systems, make healthcare (mental and physical) free and available to everyone, undo the economic disparity, close the wealth/income gap, but oh shiat!
Those would be hard and complicated and might actually work - better just pass some 'sensible and reasonable' gun control laws instead.
 
2013-09-18 09:01:32 AM  
You run into a movie theater after hearing gunshots, and see a person with a gun, and shoot him/her, shooting the person who shot the shooter
Someone sees this, and shoots you
and on and on, until the entire population of the US are heroes
 
2013-09-18 09:01:48 AM  

Deep Contact: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Deep Contact: Clackamas mall shooter faced man with concealed weapon. After killing 2, he saw the good guy with a gun and promptly killed himself.

Absolutely no evidence shooter saw your good guy.

The good guy says he did.


How the hell would he know? Did he wave?
Also just happened to be after a weapon malfunction which seems the more likely reason.
 
2013-09-18 09:04:19 AM  

kronicfeld: feckingmorons: He didn't shoot anyone. He was armed, when he wrestled with others for the weapon used to shoot everyone. You might want to read the headline.

Yes, you are literally correct, given the particular phrasing of the headline: he was an armed civilian who was partially involved in subduing the shooter. Of course, given that the gun in his pocket had no role whatsoever in what transpired, his being armed was utterly meaningless. His being armed had as much relevance as his gender, race, or sexual orientation: none.


Not true. His being armed may have given him the confidence necesary to engage the subject. Not that there were not people unarmed who didn't do the same, but I know that I would be much more willing to stand and engage rather than run if I were armed.

that said, the proponents of gun ownership aren't trying to say that if we are all armed mass shootings won't occur. gun ownership is meant to help protect the owner and perhaps his loved ones, not the world at large. while we may try to do so, and it's undeniable that having a gun gives you a chance that being unarmed does not, that protecting everyone isn't what we claim to be able to do - because it is an unreasonable expectation.
 
2013-09-18 09:05:32 AM  

fredklein: Brainsick: I_C_Weener: But nearly every week there is some story of a robbery or home invasion being stopped or partially stopped by defensive gun use.

Can you post one from say...this month? Difficulty: No NRA Links

Here's two:

Suspect killed after carjacking man at Red Box


Home intruder shot, dies


Upon previous investigation, I ascertained that neither vehicle theft nor home invasion were punishable by death. Clearly these were entirely unjustified extrajudicial killings, denying the deceased due process of law.
 
2013-09-18 09:06:19 AM  

Phinn: Yet while simple life-saving measures are ignored, which could be easily and effectively enforced, and would quickly reduce the 35,000 or so annual road deaths, in a context where the State already has plenary authority, there is a huge political push, by the Left, to exercise control over a new facet of life, which is Constitutionally off-limits, virtually impossible to enforce, all to (supposedly) respond to dangers that pose a far smaller threat to innocent life, and which would also result in an increase in people's vulnerability to violent crime.


Really working hard to sell this idiotic false equivalency, huh?

Yet while simple life-saving measures are ignored, which could be easily and effectively enforced

To whatever extent that might be true, is the real culprit liberal hypocrisy or the fact that the multi-billion dollar corporations who own the government don't like it when the government tells them their products are killing to many people?  See the common thread here?

By the way, after 5 seconds of googling, complete with conservative outrage at Obama's fascist privacy invasion and such: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-bypasses-congress-mandate-black - boxes-all-cars-beginning-14

Constitutionally off-limits

Keep telling yourself that, Sparky.
 
2013-09-18 09:07:01 AM  

DaStompa: You run into a movie theater after hearing gunshots, and see a person with a gun, and shoot him/her, shooting the person who shot the shooter
Someone sees this, and shoots you
and on and on, until the entire population of the US are heroes


Strangely, despite frequent issuance of similar predictions by concealed weapons permit opponents, such an incident has never actually occurred in reality.
 
2013-09-18 09:07:13 AM  
Because everyone just screams and runs away. Maybe it's time to address the culture of cowardice that now exists in this country.
 
2013-09-18 09:09:19 AM  
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/09/18/georgia-girl-abducte d -during-home-invasion-kidnappers-seek-ransom/

Incidentally, this is why I choose to be armed. Not to stop the next Newtown, but to protect myself and my own.
 
2013-09-18 09:09:30 AM  
"in the past 30 years no gun free zone has prevented a mass shooting. "
 
2013-09-18 09:11:35 AM  
"in the pa negative st 30 years no gun law, elephant, space shuttle,or flower garden has stopped a mass shooting."

Prove a negative
 
2013-09-18 09:12:19 AM  
Damn phone keyboard
 
2013-09-18 09:18:40 AM  

Dimensio: fredklein: Brainsick: I_C_Weener: But nearly every week there is some story of a robbery or home invasion being stopped or partially stopped by defensive gun use.

Can you post one from say...this month? Difficulty: No NRA Links

Here's two:

Suspect killed after carjacking man at Red Box


Home intruder shot, dies

Upon previous investigation, I ascertained that neither vehicle theft nor home invasion were punishable by death. Clearly these were entirely unjustified extrajudicial killings, denying the deceased due process of law.


Quit being so reasonable.

There are people who apparently believe that a potentially-lethal attacker has the right not to experience lethal force used against him.

But if that were true, then it would mean that everyone is obligated to passively tolerate violent attacks, which is nonsense.
 
2013-09-18 09:19:52 AM  

Phinn: Dimensio: fredklein: Brainsick: I_C_Weener: But nearly every week there is some story of a robbery or home invasion being stopped or partially stopped by defensive gun use.

Can you post one from say...this month? Difficulty: No NRA Links

Here's two:

Suspect killed after carjacking man at Red Box


Home intruder shot, dies

Upon previous investigation, I ascertained that neither vehicle theft nor home invasion were punishable by death. Clearly these were entirely unjustified extrajudicial killings, denying the deceased due process of law.

Quit being so reasonable.

There are people who apparently believe that a potentially-lethal attacker has the right not to experience lethal force used against him.

But if that were true, then it would mean that everyone is obligated to passively tolerate violent attacks, which is nonsense.


I have also been informed that anyone who is unable to defuse an aggressive situation with words is a coward and an intellectual inferior.
 
2013-09-18 09:19:54 AM  

Dimensio: Upon previous investigation, I ascertained that neither vehicle theft nor home invasion were punishable by death


The victim (unlike you , evidently) cannot read minds, and does not know what the criminal is going to do. A home invader or carjacker may very well decide to kill the victim. Are you one of those people who thinks it's only appropriate to defend yourself AFTER you're dead? Or are you a person who believes that a person can defend themselves if they reasonably believe they are in danger?
 
2013-09-18 09:20:51 AM  

snowshovel: Of course, the other side of this coin to this is that it REALLY debunks the theory that gun-toting civilians prevents crime, it simply rewards you with a greater sense of vengeance against the criminal.

if I see someone in my mirror flying up the expressway at 100 mph cutting people off left-and-right, can I "defensively drive" into his path cutting him off, with the hopes that he'll wipe out? That's sort of the vibe I'm getting here.


I don't know, I was responding to a challenge to find news articles in which an armed civilian interrupted or stopped the commission of a crime with the use of a gun. The person I was responding to seemed to think it was rare, but the ease with which I found recent news articles seems to suggest that it's more common than he believed.
 
2013-09-18 09:22:23 AM  

BayouOtter: Its almost like they are a tool, which is neither good nor evil, but reflects only the intent of the user.


The ownership of the tool can affect the way the user thinks, and the tool can allow a crazy user to do a hell of a lot of harm.
A nuclear bomb is also a tool but we don't generally think it's a great idea to allow private ownership of those.
 
2013-09-18 09:27:32 AM  
Dimensio:
I have also been informed infromed that anyone who is unable to defuse an aggressive situation with words is a coward and an intellectual inferior.

FTFY
 
2013-09-18 09:27:50 AM  

dookdookdook: Big_Fat_Liar: The government telling tales they knew to be lies for days or weeks isn't a scandal? Pretty sure we've heard and read the evidence. CNN has a timeline if you need it. After everyone knew the youtube video claim was bogus, Hilbillary Clinton told a dead marine's father we would do everything in our power to get the mean old youtube video maker - and we did. Not scandalous at all? "Scandal" doesn't mean someone necessarily gets fired or goes to jail. They might just get a little red in the face - which is quite a reaction for someone with the conscience of an attorney.

Seriously?  Is that really it?  I mean, I know I don't pay much attention so I don't consider myself fully infromed on the matter, but is this really the totality of what the Fox/Rove crowd is red-faced in outrage over?  Someone may or may not have went on a political talk show and said something not exactly true for some unknown political reason?  Has there been a single day in the history of political talk shows when that didn't happen?

And Hillary tried to comfort a grieving father?  OH THE OUTRAGE!

How many millions of taxpayer dollars has Darryl Issa wastedwisely spent unearthing these egregious acts of treason and terror?


So you do get it then.  Politicians lied.  If you don't want to call politicians being liars scandalous, I fully understand!  At least we agree on the facts.  I could not possibly care less if anyone is outraged or not over some aspect of this.  I think this about sums up the scandal, aside from the classic government non-reaction to the security needs of its citizens.  But that is understandable since for the past decade or more the government has had far more important things to do, like spying on Americans, militarizing local law enforcement, arming Mexican drug cartels then protecting the border followed by amnesty for those who made it over the border, closing abortion clinics, spending our money fighting gay marriage right up until it switched to spending our money supporting gay marriage, and of course the ever-important task of arresting marijuanna growers.  They aren't just going to arrest themselves.  Protecting an embassy is pretty far down on the priority list.  But none of rant plays into the scandal really...
 
2013-09-18 09:30:10 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: liam76: TuteTibiImperes: You could have trained psychologists/psychiatrists do it, the application gets flagged, a mental health professional enrolled in the government program contacts the applicant and requests a meeting if they would like to continue their purchase, and they come in for a session (or more if the professional believes it's necessary) who then makes the ruling on if the sale goes through or not. The government could just contract the work out to local psychologists/psychiatrists in the area who go through a screening process to supply and work as independent contractors.

If the applicant is denied there could be an appeals process that brings the issue up before a judge

And there is the problem.

Don't get me wrong I am for universal background check, and there should be a mechanism to raise red flags for mental health, but if soem guy is going to make more money by saying a person is nuts, it won't work.

Assuming they're paid the same amount for the exam regardless of the outcome, it shouldn't provide any incentive to deny people who aren't in a dangerous mental state.


Well if there are more sessions they would get paid more.

Even if there is no monetary incentive, there may still be an incentive.

Two off the top of my head.
If you say he may be a risk and never does anything, so what. Little to no professional danger, you say they are "ok" and they do go batty, you may be farked.

Personal feelings on guns.

I am nto against sucha system, just saying it woudl need careful monitoring, and shoudl have a sunset provision inthe law to see if it is abused.
 
2013-09-18 09:30:58 AM  
Did Obama get a background check on all the al Queda/Syrian rebels before changing the rules to allow arming terrorists? Or are we risking that none of them have mental health issues?
 
2013-09-18 09:32:06 AM  
:)
 
2013-09-18 09:34:09 AM  
Dianne Feignsten's armed body guards have not stopped a single mass shooting in America.
 
2013-09-18 09:36:29 AM  

RatMaster999: OrangeSnapper: feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[www.renegadepopo.com image 306x256]
  Thousands Tens of thousands of times each year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families kill themselves and each other with firearms.
[api.ning.com image 850x689]

Judging from your numbers, we should be outlawing motor vehicles and ladders before we get to firearms.  It's about saving lives, isn't it?

And don't get me started on cigarettes...


Sigh...

200 people per year are justifiably killed by lawful firearm owners.  These are your Zimmermans, your heroes, those you want to emulate.  These are the stories that the gun industry repeats over and over to sell their products.  It is a powerful fantasy.  These are the instances of vigilante justice we are all supposed to be ready to sacrifice for....

Here is the sacrifice: 11,000 people unjustifiably killed by firearm owners (and that's not including suicides).  Their stories are not told.  They are just statistics.  They are 11,000 families burying a loved one who went before his or her time, thanks to the lawful gun owners who just happened to have an unlawful day, the lawful gun purchasers who lawfully sold their guns to unlawful people, the lawful gun owners who lawfully left their guns unattended, et cetera.

The point is how does the 200 hero stories published in Guns And Ammo justify the 11,000 instances of collateral death?  Because that is what you get when you put firearms into the hands of every unqualified amateur that wants one.  Tell me again how guns save lives.
 
2013-09-18 09:36:56 AM  
In the last 30 years, keys are always in the last place you look. Why have you been looking anywhere else?
 
2013-09-18 09:38:53 AM  

OrangeSnapper: RatMaster999: OrangeSnapper: feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[www.renegadepopo.com image 306x256]
  Thousands Tens of thousands of times each year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families kill themselves and each other with firearms.
[api.ning.com image 850x689]

Judging from your numbers, we should be outlawing motor vehicles and ladders before we get to firearms.  It's about saving lives, isn't it?

And don't get me started on cigarettes...

Sigh...

200 people per year are justifiably killed by lawful firearm owners.  These are your Zimmermans, your heroes, those you want to emulate.  These are the stories that the gun industry repeats over and over to sell their products.  It is a powerful fantasy.  These are the instances of vigilante justice we are all supposed to be ready to sacrifice for....

Here is the sacrifice: 11,000 people unjustifiably killed by firearm owners (and that's not including suicides).  Their stories are not told.  They are just statistics.  They are 11,000 families burying a loved one who went before his or her time, thanks to the lawful gun owners who just happened to have an unlawful day, the lawful gun purchasers who lawfully sold their guns to unlawful people, the lawful gun owners who lawfully left their guns unattended, et cetera.

The point is how does the 200 hero stories published in Guns And Ammo justify the 11,000 instances of collateral death?  Because that is what you get when you put firearms into the hands of every unqualified amateur that wants one.  Tell me again how guns save lives.


If all justified defensive firearm uses resulted in death, your argument would not be intellectually dishonest.
 
2013-09-18 09:43:09 AM  
The caveat I read somewhere was each time an armed "civilian" has helped stop a mass shooting, the "civilian" was in fact an off-duty law enforcement officer.
 
2013-09-18 09:43:16 AM  

Dimensio: OrangeSnapper: RatMaster999: OrangeSnapper: feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[www.renegadepopo.com image 306x256]
  Thousands Tens of thousands of times each year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families kill themselves and each other with firearms.
[api.ning.com image 850x689]

Judging from your numbers, we should be outlawing motor vehicles and ladders before we get to firearms.  It's about saving lives, isn't it?

And don't get me started on cigarettes...

Sigh...

200 people per year are justifiably killed by lawful firearm owners.  These are your Zimmermans, your heroes, those you want to emulate.  These are the stories that the gun industry repeats over and over to sell their products.  It is a powerful fantasy.  These are the instances of vigilante justice we are all supposed to be ready to sacrifice for....

Here is the sacrifice: 11,000 people unjustifiably killed by firearm owners (and that's not including suicides).  Their stories are not told.  They are just statistics.  They are 11,000 families burying a loved one who went before his or her time, thanks to the lawful gun owners who just happened to have an unlawful day, the lawful gun purchasers who lawfully sold their guns to unlawful people, the lawful gun owners who lawfully left their guns unattended, et cetera.

The point is how does the 200 hero stories published in Guns And Ammo justify the 11,000 instances of collateral death?  Because that is what you get when you put firearms into the hands of every unqualified amateur that wants one.  Tell me again how guns save lives.

If all justified defensive firearm uses resulted in death, your argument would not be intellectually dishonest.


No, it would still be dishonest.

Universal background check would only make a dent int hat 11,000 number. Most murderes are committed by people who currently shouldn't have guns.
 
2013-09-18 09:46:23 AM  

OrangeSnapper: feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[www.renegadepopo.com image 306x256]
  Thousands Tens of thousands of times each year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families kill themselves and each other with firearms.
[api.ning.com image 850x689]


So the definition of protecting someone or yourself has to include the death of a perpetrator?

That means police protected only 200 people more than non police did last year.

You sure you want to go with that?

Where does Laughner and Tsarnaev and sideshow bob fit into your statistics since all of them were taken alive by police?

I've used my firearm twice in my lifetime to defend myself. Noone died though. Why doesn't that count?
 
2013-09-18 09:48:08 AM  

liam76: Universal background check would only make a dent int hat 11,000 number. Most murderes are committed by people who currently shouldn't have guns.


Apparent contradiction.
 
2013-09-18 09:48:11 AM  
Well apparently the idea that the armed citizenry is a deterrent to an oppressive government bent on usurping the rights of the citizens isn't working out anyway, so why don't we just give all our guns up and bend over for the courts, congress and corporations that control us.
 
2013-09-18 09:48:55 AM  

Phinn: Mass shootings almost always occur in legally-mandated gun-free zones. Law-abiding civilians don't bring guns there.

Was Floyd Corkins stopped by armed civilians? I can't remember. Corkins was the only politically-motivated mass murder (albeit prevented) in more than 10 years -- he was a gay marriage advocate. He had something like 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches with him, which he planned to smear in his victims' faces.

Clearly, left-wing political activists, inspired by the SPLC's list of designated "hate groups," pose the 21st century's biggest political mass-shooting threat.


"According to a study by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, less than a quarter of mass shootings in the last four years occurred in "gun free zones.""
 
2013-09-18 09:50:23 AM  

Pharmdawg: give all our guns up and bend over


NOT A FETISH.
 
2013-09-18 09:52:55 AM  

liam76: TuteTibiImperes: liam76: TuteTibiImperes: You could have trained psychologists/psychiatrists do it, the application gets flagged, a mental health professional enrolled in the government program contacts the applicant and requests a meeting if they would like to continue their purchase, and they come in for a session (or more if the professional believes it's necessary) who then makes the ruling on if the sale goes through or not. The government could just contract the work out to local psychologists/psychiatrists in the area who go through a screening process to supply and work as independent contractors.

If the applicant is denied there could be an appeals process that brings the issue up before a judge

And there is the problem.

Don't get me wrong I am for universal background check, and there should be a mechanism to raise red flags for mental health, but if soem guy is going to make more money by saying a person is nuts, it won't work.

Assuming they're paid the same amount for the exam regardless of the outcome, it shouldn't provide any incentive to deny people who aren't in a dangerous mental state.

Well if there are more sessions they would get paid more.

Even if there is no monetary incentive, there may still be an incentive.

Two off the top of my head.
If you say he may be a risk and never does anything, so what. Little to no professional danger, you say they are "ok" and they do go batty, you may be farked.

Personal feelings on guns.

I am nto against sucha system, just saying it woudl need careful monitoring, and shoudl have a sunset provision inthe law to see if it is abused.


That's not unreasonable.  I'm sure there could be ways to balance the liability and provide oversight to make such a system effective.
 
2013-09-18 09:56:36 AM  

OrangeSnapper: RatMaster999: OrangeSnapper: feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[www.renegadepopo.com image 306x256]
  Thousands Tens of thousands of times each year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families kill themselves and each other with firearms.
[api.ning.com image 850x689]

Judging from your numbers, we should be outlawing motor vehicles and ladders before we get to firearms.  It's about saving lives, isn't it?

And don't get me started on cigarettes...

Sigh...

200 people per year are justifiably killed by lawful firearm owners.  These are your Zimmermans, your heroes, those you want to emulate.  These are the stories that the gun industry repeats over and over to sell their products.  It is a powerful fantasy.  These are the instances of vigilante justice we are all supposed to be ready to sacrifice for....

Here is the sacrifice: 11,000 people unjustifiably killed by firearm owners (and that's not including suicides).  Their stories are not told.  They are just statistics.  They are 11,000 families burying a loved one who went before his or her time, thanks to the lawful gun owners who just happened to have an unlawful day, the lawful gun purchasers who lawfully sold their guns to unlawful people, the lawful gun owners who lawfully left their guns unattended, et cetera.

The point is how does the 200 hero stories published in Guns And Ammo justify the 11,000 instances of collateral death?  Because that is what you get when you put firearms into the hands of every unqualified amateur that wants one.  Tell me again how guns save lives.


85% of all gun related homicide are perpetrated by people with previous felony convictions that preclude them from owning a firearm.

85% of all victims of firearm related homicide are also people with prior felony convictions.

85% of all victims and perpetrators of firearm homicide are involved in gangs or the drug trade.


And firearm related homicide statistics have been trending down for the past 30 years.

The world is actually a safer place but you wouldn't know that from the sensationalism that it seems even Fark has become a part of.

I'm wondering how much Drew gets paid to post these agenda driven inaccurate articles.
 
2013-09-18 09:57:51 AM  
Look, because I don't  REALLY DESPERATELY WANT TO HAVE A GUN, I can look at the numbers and say, yeah, no thanks, I'm sure as hell better off without one, and in most cases I'm better off without you having one, too.

So I'm not going to be comment #400 in gun thread #80,000 trying to convince all the people who really desperately want their guns that they don't actually want them.

Instead, I'll just point out that I'm 37 years old, and (unless I get shot!) I'm reasonably likely to live to see a day when three things are true:

1. We (society) really did "come for your guns." Handguns and civilian gonna-kill-some-dudes guns, at least.
2. You gave them up without a fight, in spite of every "cold dead hands" post you've ever made.
3. Your grandchildren give you shiat about ever having owned one, assuming you don't just lie about ever having been a gun owner.

I mean, yeah, a lot of really horrible shiat is going to happen in the meantime, for that to happen. So I won't exactly be smiling when you dutifully drop your collapsible-stock quick-reload semi-automatic "hunting rifles" off at the local PD, to say nothing of all the cheapass handguns you put loaded in your bedside drawers and then didn't touch or clean for twenty years. But hopefully I won't be so old that I won't have the presence of mind to ask what your Fark handle was back in the day.
 
2013-09-18 10:01:39 AM  
On the other hand, how many of those mass shootings were started by an armed civilian?
 
2013-09-18 10:01:58 AM  
I'm reasonably likely to live to see a day when three things are true:
1. We (society) really did "come for your guns." Handguns and civilian gonna-kill-some-dudes guns, at least.
2. You gave them up without a fight, in spite of every "cold dead hands" post you've ever made.
3. Your grandchildren give you shiat about ever having owned one, assuming you don't just lie about ever having been a gun owner.


I'm not a gun owner, but you are out of your mind if you actually believe this. Nothing could be further from the truth.
 
2013-09-18 10:13:04 AM  

El_Perro: NickelP: Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed. Can you make us a case that any mass shooting was made worse by an armed civilian? And don't say the shooter dumbass

Don't know about a civilian, but it looks like the Navy Yard shooter used at least one (and maybe two) guns that he took after shooting armed guards at the start of his rampage.


And he also couldn't be stopped by the rest of the military personnel who weren't allowed to carry guns.  And neither could pretty much any other mass shooter because he was in some other gun free zone such as a school, a mall or a movie theater.  I would love to see someone try and start a mass shooting at a gun show or a bar with open carry.

Someone already made a point that we can't find examples of armed citizens stopping mass shootings, because when they do then a mass shooting didn't happen.  And people who want to start a mass murder always go where the guns aren't.

If anyone has the fantasy it's the deluded liberals who think outlawing guns in this country would create a non-violent utopia.
 
2013-09-18 10:13:31 AM  

flondrix: The caveat I read somewhere was each time an armed "civilian" has helped stop a mass shooting, the "civilian" was in fact an off-duty law enforcement officer.


This is true of the ones that have stopped a shooting that started.  Who knows how many have been stopped before the shooter got going?  Those instances above...who knows if the home invader, or carjacker, or robber was going to stop with just one?  Maybe these defensive gun uses have stopped thousands of spree killers?  We just don't know, do we...since they stopped the person before they killed one person.

Or in other words, "In the past 30 years, police officers have failed to stop mass shootings before they became mass shootings 100% of the time."
 
2013-09-18 10:14:50 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Universal background check would only make a dent int hat 11,000 number. Most murderes are committed by people who currently shouldn't have guns.

Apparent contradiction.


If you are a moron and think most criminals get their guns legally.
 
2013-09-18 10:17:01 AM  

dehehn: And he also couldn't be stopped by the rest of the military personnel who weren't allowed to carry guns.  And neither could pretty much any other mass shooter because he was in some other gun free zone such as a school, a mall or a movie theater.  I would love to see someone try and start a mass shooting at a gun show or a bar with open carry.


A few years back I submitted a headline about an incident in Texas.  It was something like, "Gunshot fired at Texas gun show.  One?  That doesn't sound like Texas.  'Over 40 shots fired back'.  Okay, that sounds like Texas."
 
2013-09-18 10:18:49 AM  
WOW!

Progressives pushing lies to further their anti-whatever they don't agree with agenda.
 
2013-09-18 10:19:54 AM  

Dimensio: OrangeSnapper: RatMaster999: OrangeSnapper: feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[www.renegadepopo.com image 306x256]
  Thousands Tens of thousands of times each year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families kill themselves and each other with firearms.
[api.ning.com image 850x689]

Judging from your numbers, we should be outlawing motor vehicles and ladders before we get to firearms.  It's about saving lives, isn't it?

And don't get me started on cigarettes...

Sigh...

200 people per year are justifiably killed by lawful firearm owners.  These are your Zimmermans, your heroes, those you want to emulate.  These are the stories that the gun industry repeats over and over to sell their products.  It is a powerful fantasy.  These are the instances of vigilante justice we are all supposed to be ready to sacrifice for....

Here is the sacrifice: 11,000 people unjustifiably killed by firearm owners (and that's not including suicides).  Their stories are not told.  They are just statistics.  They are 11,000 families burying a loved one who went before his or her time, thanks to the lawful gun owners who just happened to have an unlawful day, the lawful gun purchasers who lawfully sold their guns to unlawful people, the lawful gun owners who lawfully left their guns unattended, et cetera.

The point is how does the 200 hero stories published in Guns And Ammo justify the 11,000 instances of collateral death?  Because that is what you get when you put firearms into the hands of every unqualified amateur that wants one.  Tell me again how guns save lives.

If all justified defensive firearm uses resulted in death, your argument would not be intellectually dishonest.


Yes, yes.  Let's compare apples to oranges, as you say.  That would be "intellectually honest": comparing  deaths to non-deaths.  Instead of comparing bad guys killed to good guys killed, let's compare good guys killed to bad guys scared.  The latter statistic doesn't really exist; it's pretty much just a bunch of CSBs from self-proclaimed heroes, so you're more free to just make some numbers up.
 
2013-09-18 10:25:03 AM  
      "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"


So, stopping mass shootings was the reason that the framers of the Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment?

Who knew?
 
2013-09-18 10:27:34 AM  
Salon fail.

December 2007, New Life Church in Colorado Springs.  Former police officer Jeanne Assam (an armed citizen at the time) shoots gunman in the church; gunman has 3 weapons and 1,000 rounds of ammo.  Gunman had killed 2 and wounded 5 in the parking lot moments before, and killed 2 others at a missionary training school the previous night.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/12/10/colorado-church-gunman-had-g ru dge-against-christian-group-cops-say/
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/11/nation/na-shoot11
http://www.5280.com/magazine/2012/12/jeanne-assam-still-waiting
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22174890/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/col o- shooter-identified--year-old-male/#.Ujm3iMaTh8E
 
2013-09-18 10:27:46 AM  

Amos Quito: "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"


So, stopping mass shootings was the reason that the framers of the Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment?

Who knew?


No, in fact, they incorporated it to make sure there was a supply of available men and arms to defend the country as a militia should the need arise, something which is no longer needed today, which makes it odd that it's held to be so sacred.
 
2013-09-18 10:30:13 AM  
Giltric:
I've used my firearm twice in my lifetime to defend myself. Noone died though. Why doesn't that count?

Cool story, bro.
 
2013-09-18 10:32:10 AM  

liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Universal background check would only make a dent int hat 11,000 number. Most murderes are committed by people who currently shouldn't have guns.

Apparent contradiction.

If you are a moron and think most criminals get their guns legally.


Without...a...background...check...how...would...you...know...you're. . .selling...to...a...criminal...?
 
2013-09-18 10:34:12 AM  
 
2013-09-18 10:34:41 AM  

Giltric: I've used my firearm twice in my lifetime to defend myself. Noone died though. Why doesn't that count?


You're a lousy shot?
 
2013-09-18 10:34:44 AM  

Triumph: What a coincidence - not a single mass shooting was stopped by gun control laws.


Not a single mass shooting THAT OCCURRED was stopped by gun control laws.  OMFG you just blew my mind and didn't even have a gun.

I for one think everyone should be required to carry a rubber chicken.  Not a single mass shooting has occurred where the victims were carrying a rubber chicken.
 
2013-09-18 10:35:35 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Amos Quito: "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"


So, stopping mass shootings was the reason that the framers of the Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment?

Who knew?

No, in fact, they incorporated it to make sure there was a supply of available men and arms to defend the country as a militia should the need arise, something which is no longer needed today, which makes it odd that it's held to be so sacred.


Was Crispus Attucks defending his country as a solder or militiaman when he died or was he murdered as a citizen?

I doubt you believe that a person has a right to defend themselves through any means necessary, you probably do not hold human life in high regard.
 
2013-09-18 10:36:36 AM  

dehehn: 9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally Owned Firearm Off-Duty Cops and Vets

 
2013-09-18 10:37:44 AM  

kronicfeld: feckingmorons: He didn't shoot anyone. He was armed, when he wrestled with others for the weapon used to shoot everyone. You might want to read the headline.

Yes, you are literally correct, given the particular phrasing of the headline: he was an armed civilian who was partially involved in subduing the shooter. Of course, given that the gun in his pocket had no role whatsoever in what transpired, his being armed was utterly meaningless. His being armed had as much relevance as his gender, race, or sexual orientation: none.


Did you know that Zamudio also had a rock in his pocket at the time of Rep. Giffords' shooting? That day could have been 100s of times more deadly if he hadn't had that rock, what with all the tigers running around and the scent of the freshly spilled blood of the shooting victims in the air.
 
2013-09-18 10:39:33 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: dehehn: 9 "Potential" Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally Owned Firearm Off-Duty Cops and Vets


Also
This article refers to a study that included only events where 4 people were killed.
 
2013-09-18 10:40:24 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Universal background check would only make a dent int hat 11,000 number. Most murderes are committed by people who currently shouldn't have guns.

Apparent contradiction.

If you are a moron and think most criminals get their guns legally.

Without...a...background...check...how...would...you...know...you're. . .selling...to...a...criminal...?


Felons aren't allowed to posses and buy firearms. They are already breaking the law.
 
2013-09-18 10:41:32 AM  

433: DRTFA, DRTcomments.

A shooting at Smith County Courthouse in Texas was halted by a man with a sidearm.  The shooter had shot several people in the courthouse, several more outside.  A man with a concealed-carry license drew on him, and struck the shooter, mortally wounding him.  The shooter fatally shot the man firing at him, and fled in a pickup.  He wrecked the truck a distance later, dead.


The gentleman in question was retired Navy, and while what he did was no less than heroic, the question posed would be in regards to those without military training. Former/off-duty/current cops and security guards would also not necessarily count as a plain old regular Joe with a gun, as all of the above (with the possible exception of a security guard) have had some sort of training in dealing with these situations.
 
2013-09-18 10:44:58 AM  
I don't understand how gun owners can fool themselves into thinking more guns are the answer when there are plenty of countries with very few guns that coincidentally don't have problems like this. Are these people unaware there are case studies outside the United States that provide evidence that their arguments are flawed?
 
2013-09-18 10:45:13 AM  
You gun grabbers should all be thankful for the dozens of times in the past 30 years that I've prevented extinction-level meteor impacts with my mind.

How many times have earth- shattering meteors destroyed all human life, huh? None? There's your proof, buddy.

You people owe me, big time. I'm getting upset just thinking about it.
 
2013-09-18 10:45:41 AM  
Ithis is interesting new fark logic.

I guess vets aren't civilians.

To the people making this argument, do you think vets should have special rights when it comes to carrying weapons in public?
 
2013-09-18 10:47:00 AM  

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I don't understand how gun owners can fool themselves into thinking more guns are the answer when there are plenty of countries with very few guns that coincidentally don't have problems like this. Are these people unaware there are case studies outside the United States that provide evidence that their arguments are flawed?


See: socialized medicine
 
2013-09-18 10:47:32 AM  

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I don't understand how gun owners can fool themselves into thinking more guns are the answer when there are plenty of countries with very few guns that coincidentally don't have problems like this. Are these people unaware there are case studies outside the United States that provide evidence that their arguments are flawed?


Are you aware that none of thsoe studies adressed countries with as many weapons as the US has per person?

Are you aware that those studies have no legal impact on the 2nd?
 
2013-09-18 10:48:27 AM  

liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Universal background check would only make a dent int hat 11,000 number. Most murderes are committed by people who currently shouldn't have guns.

Apparent contradiction.

If you are a moron and think most criminals get their guns legally.

Without...a...background...check...how...would...you...know...you're. . .selling...to...a...criminal...?

Felons aren't allowed to posses and buy firearms. They are already breaking the law.


Without

a

background

check

how

would

you

know

you're

selling

to

a

criminal

?
 
2013-09-18 10:48:35 AM  

Phinn: You gun grabbers should all be thankful for the dozens of times in the past 30 years that I've prevented extinction-level meteor impacts with my mind.

How many times have earth- shattering meteors destroyed all human life, huh? None? There's your proof, buddy.

You people owe me, big time. I'm getting upset just thinking about it.


Thanks a lot. I was controlling those meteors with MY mind. But you stopped me.

<shakes fist>
 
2013-09-18 10:48:39 AM  

liam76: Ithis is interesting new fark logic.

I guess vets aren't civilians.

To the people making this argument, do you think vets should have special rights when it comes to carrying weapons in public?


Only from certain MOS.

18s? definitely.

15s? how about no.
 
2013-09-18 10:51:20 AM  

liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Universal background check would only make a dent int hat 11,000 number. Most murderes are committed by people who currently shouldn't have guns.

Apparent contradiction.

If you are a moron and think most criminals get their guns legally.


upload.wikimedia.org

Not contradicting, just adding information.
 
2013-09-18 10:53:20 AM  
Giltric:
85% of all gun related homicide are perpetrated by people with previous felony convictions that preclude them from owning a firearm.

85% of all victims of firearm related homicide are also people with prior felony convictions.

85% of all victims and perpetrators of firearm homicide are involved in gangs ...


Did you happen to have a teacher 15 years ago who flunked you in a lab class for fabricating numbers?  If so, we may know each other.
 
2013-09-18 10:53:25 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Universal background check would only make a dent int hat 11,000 number. Most murderes are committed by people who currently shouldn't have guns.

Apparent contradiction.

If you are a moron and think most criminals get their guns legally.

Without...a...background...check...how...would...you...know...you're. . .selling...to...a...criminal...?


'Cause they the seller asked "Are you a criminal?", the buyers all said "no."

Doesn't that count as a background check?
 
2013-09-18 10:54:41 AM  

liam76: Ithis is interesting new fark logic.

I guess vets aren't civilians.

To the people making this argument, do you think vets should have special rights when it comes to carrying weapons in public?


Would you like to know more?
 
2013-09-18 10:54:50 AM  

Tyee: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-tha t -were-stopped-by-someone-wit
9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally-Owned Firearm that the Mother Jones "study" pretended didn't happen or just ignored.


All but three mention that the person who stopped the shooting was a cop or former military. In at least one of the ones where it didn't mention that (Nick Meli), the person who stopped it was an off-duty security guard. I couldn't find anything on the other two, but I think that's the point that they're trying to make-- that typically when you hear of these things it's not Joe Average with a gun. It's been someone who has had some sort of prior training in handling these situations.
 
2013-09-18 10:59:09 AM  

Giltric: Was Crispus Attucks defending his country as a solder or militiaman when he died or was he murdered as a citizen?



He was rightfully executed by officers of the Crown for armed rebellion.
 
2013-09-18 10:59:41 AM  

OrangeSnapper: That would be "intellectually honest": comparing  deaths to non-deaths.


More accurately: comparing crimes completed to crimes averted is intellectually honest. Limiting analysis of defensive firearm uses to those where death resulted is intellectually dishonest.
 
2013-09-18 11:02:26 AM  

liam76: The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I don't understand how gun owners can fool themselves into thinking more guns are the answer when there are plenty of countries with very few guns that coincidentally don't have problems like this. Are these people unaware there are case studies outside the United States that provide evidence that their arguments are flawed?

Are you aware that none of thsoe studies adressed countries with as many weapons as the US has per person?

Are you aware that those studies have no legal impact on the 2nd?


Just did a quick check on Norway here. We have 1/3 as many guns per capita, about 1/6 as many gun deaths per capita per year.

You're probably familiar with the fact that Switzerland is pretty well armed. Almost half as many guns per capita as the US. And twice the gun death rate as here in Norway.

Japan has .6 guns per 100 people, and .06 gun deaths per 100,000 people per year, compared with the US's 10.
 
2013-09-18 11:03:09 AM  

Elegy: Unless you're suggesting we disqualify anyone from the list that has ever served in the military or police.


Nobody's going to claim that they don't count, per se, but again... The point being made is that there is a vast difference between "armed person" and "armed civilian." To say that something was stopped by an "armed civilian" would imply that said person has had no professional military or law enforcement training, and I think we can all agree that there is a vast difference between someone who has had that training and someone who hasn't and how each would react in these situations. The idea seems to be among some that simply having a gun (no training) would be enough to stop these things. That isn't necessarily the case.

I'm personally all for guns, but I also strongly believe that people should be required to go through basic firearms training at the very least. I've told the story at least a dozen times of the woman I encountered who was going on about her new gun and how she couldn't tell whether or not it was loaded. If Darwin only took out the stupid ones where guns were concerned, I wouldn't be so worried about people like her.
 
2013-09-18 11:08:22 AM  

supayoda: Tyee: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-tha t -were-stopped-by-someone-wit
9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally-Owned Firearm that the Mother Jones "study" pretended didn't happen or just ignored.

All but three mention that the person who stopped the shooting was a cop or former military. In at least one of the ones where it didn't mention that (Nick Meli), the person who stopped it was an off-duty security guard. I couldn't find anything on the other two, but I think that's the point that they're trying to make-- that typically when you hear of these things it's not Joe Average with a gun. It's been someone who has had some sort of prior training in handling these situations.


"Former military" is a civilian.
"Police officer", on-duty of off, is a civilian.
"Security guard" is a civilian.

And the people in all of these categories are "Average Joes."
As for the training involved, only the police have anything applicable. I was in the Army for six years, and I never had a minute of training in how to deal with a nut-job shooting up a crowd of people. I don't think the security guard that kind of training at mall-cop school.
 
2013-09-18 11:08:53 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Phinn: Mass shootings almost always occur in legally-mandated gun-free zones. Law-abiding civilians don't bring guns there.

Was Floyd Corkins stopped by armed civilians? I can't remember. Corkins was the only politically-motivated mass murder (albeit prevented) in more than 10 years -- he was a gay marriage advocate. He had something like 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches with him, which he planned to smear in his victims' faces.

Clearly, left-wing political activists, inspired by the SPLC's list of designated "hate groups," pose the 21st century's biggest political mass-shooting threat.

"According to a study by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, less than a quarter of mass shootings in the last four years occurred in "gun free zones.""


It's just false. It depends on a self-serving definition of "gun-free zone." Mother Jones and the (Democrat) Mayor's "study" doesn't count a place as a gun-free zone if there are armed security guards (military bases, malls, schools), but the ordinary private citizen is barred from carrying, even with a CCW. The Navy Yard was a gun-free zone. Virginia Tech. Aurora. Fort Hood.

There haven't been that many mass shootings in the last 30 years. Look them up and count the shopping malls, government facilities, schools and churches.
 
2013-09-18 11:15:33 AM  

Calipataa: liam76: The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I don't understand how gun owners can fool themselves into thinking more guns are the answer when there are plenty of countries with very few guns that coincidentally don't have problems like this. Are these people unaware there are case studies outside the United States that provide evidence that their arguments are flawed?

Are you aware that none of thsoe studies adressed countries with as many weapons as the US has per person?

Are you aware that those studies have no legal impact on the 2nd?

Just did a quick check on Norway here. We have 1/3 as many guns per capita, about 1/6 as many gun deaths per capita per year.

You're probably familiar with the fact that Switzerland is pretty well armed. Almost half as many guns per capita as the US. And twice the gun death rate as here in Norway.

Japan has .6 guns per 100 people, and .06 gun deaths per 100,000 people per year, compared with the US's 10.


Neither Japan, Norway nor Switzerland have as many young, unemployed, urban, drug-dealing gang members as the USA.

Would you like to know who commits most of the gun crime in the USA?
 
2013-09-18 11:17:59 AM  

Prophet of Loss: How gun owners see themselves:

[mobiusband.com image 300x420]

The reality:

[hellogiggles.com image 478x310]


I didn't think the boy would look in the crisper drawer
 
2013-09-18 11:18:02 AM  

Dimensio: OrangeSnapper: That would be "intellectually honest": comparing  deaths to non-deaths.

More accurately: comparing crimes completed to crimes averted is intellectually honest. Limiting analysis of defensive firearm uses to those where death resulted is intellectually dishonest.


Do you have the numbers for crimes completed to crimes averted?  I'd honestly be interested in those too.  The best ones I can find show around 400,000 firearms-related crime victims per year.

I'll maintain that comparing deaths to deaths is quite valid.  Guns are lethal weapons; death is what they are designed for.  To this end, bad guys are using them more effectively than good guys.

I don't know how often guns are used to threaten.  But I'm inclined to suspect that they help the bad more than the good here, too.  We know that bad guys shoot to kill more often.  It is likely that they draw their guns to threaten more often, too.
 
2013-09-18 11:20:55 AM  
Dimensio:
Strangely, despite frequent issuance of similar predictions by concealed weapons permit opponents, such an incident has never actually occurred in reality.

I'm not an opponent, I just think that some sort of critical thinking/sanity test/renewal should be required.  Of the CC permit owners I know, Three-ish are lunatics who are just dying to have an excuse to murder someone.
 
2013-09-18 11:20:58 AM  

Phinn: Would you like to know who commits most of the gun crime in the USA?


Oooh, don't tell me...... It's Madonna, isn't it? I always said she was up to no good.
 
2013-09-18 11:24:45 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Amos Quito: "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"


So, stopping mass shootings was the reason that the framers of the Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment?

Who knew?

No, in fact, they incorporated it to make sure there was a supply of available men and arms to defend the country as a militia should the need arise, something which is no longer needed today, which makes it odd that it's held to be so sacred.


Yes.  Except that it was also in case that militia needed to defend the people against its government, so it IS needed, especially today.
 
2013-09-18 11:25:30 AM  

Gothnet: Phinn: Would you like to know who commits most of the gun crime in the USA?

Oooh, don't tell me...... It's Madonna, isn't it? I always said she was up to no good.


Sorry for the mobile link, but here's a hint --

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1862771
 
2013-09-18 11:27:38 AM  

Phinn: Gothnet: Phinn: Would you like to know who commits most of the gun crime in the USA?

Oooh, don't tell me...... It's Madonna, isn't it? I always said she was up to no good.

Sorry for the mobile link, but here's a hint --

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1862771


Gah! Trying again...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1862771
 
2013-09-18 11:29:31 AM  

Phinn: Would you like to know who commits most of the gun crime in the USA?


Grannies.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-18 11:32:49 AM  

OrangeSnapper: I'll maintain that comparing deaths to deaths is quite valid.


Understandable, as such a dishonest comparison is the most effective way to claim that defensive firearm uses are rare.
 
2013-09-18 11:39:49 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Amos Quito: "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"


So, stopping mass shootings was the reason that the framers of the Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment?

Who knew?

No, in fact, they incorporated it to make sure there was a supply of available men and arms to defend the country as a militia should the need arise, something which is no longer needed today, which makes it odd that it's held to be so sacred.



The RKBA is held "sacred" because it is the only effective means that The People have to deter tyranny - the one "right" that allows The People to defend all other "rights" if and when government becomes intolerably oppressive.

But of course folks like you believe that all government is inherently and perpetually benevolent, so I wouldn't expect you to "get it".
 
2013-09-18 11:40:46 AM  

Dimensio: OrangeSnapper: I'll maintain that comparing deaths to deaths is quite valid.

Understandable, as such a dishonest comparison is the most effective way to claim that defensive firearm uses are rare.


So, you don't have any statistics at all do you?  Nothing at all to defend your position, just name calling?  Sorry to have overestimated you.
 
2013-09-18 11:43:33 AM  

OrangeSnapper: Dimensio: OrangeSnapper: I'll maintain that comparing deaths to deaths is quite valid.

Understandable, as such a dishonest comparison is the most effective way to claim that defensive firearm uses are rare.

So, you don't have any statistics at all do you?  Nothing at all to defend your position, just name calling?  Sorry to have overestimated you.


Estimates of defensive firearm uses range from 150,000 incidents annually to 1.5 million incidents annually. However, as you will disregard any incident for any accepted number when no deaths resulted, you have already demonstrated a disregard for honest analysis.
 
2013-09-18 11:45:16 AM  

supayoda: 433: DRTFA, DRTcomments.

A shooting at Smith County Courthouse in Texas was halted by a man with a sidearm.  The shooter had shot several people in the courthouse, several more outside.  A man with a concealed-carry license drew on him, and struck the shooter, mortally wounding him.  The shooter fatally shot the man firing at him, and fled in a pickup.  He wrecked the truck a distance later, dead.

The gentleman in question was retired Navy, and while what he did was no less than heroic, the question posed would be in regards to those without military training. Former/off-duty/current cops and security guards would also not necessarily count as a plain old regular Joe with a gun, as all of the above (with the possible exception of a security guard) have had some sort of training in dealing with these situations.


So only ex-military and ex-vets should be allowed to utilize their constitutional rights?

Nice society you got there, Heinlein.
 
2013-09-18 11:46:21 AM  

OrangeSnapper: Dimensio: OrangeSnapper: I'll maintain that comparing deaths to deaths is quite valid.

Understandable, as such a dishonest comparison is the most effective way to claim that defensive firearm uses are rare.

So, you don't have any statistics at all do you?  Nothing at all to defend your position, just name calling?  Sorry to have overestimated you.


He's right.  Its odd how you feel it necessary to single out defensive gun use that results in no one dead.  Isn't that the ideal?  Use of a gun to prevent harm...and it actually does?

But you are also right.  Ignoring all the times when a criminal uses a gun and no one is hurt is also a bad idea.

Then again, remember 9/11 when we all knew the best way to save yourself during a hijacking was to cooperate?  That works...until it doesn't.
 
2013-09-18 11:48:15 AM  
Bull shiat
 
2013-09-18 11:50:52 AM  

Amos Quito: "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"


So, stopping mass shootings was the reason that the framers of the Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment?

Who knew?


SCOTUS in their latest rulings.
 
2013-09-18 11:52:10 AM  
> salon.com

Phew, for a second there I thought it was true.
 
2013-09-18 11:53:11 AM  
Salon Fail

Off duty cop, carrying his pistol..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting
 
2013-09-18 11:54:13 AM  

Amos Quito: TuteTibiImperes: Amos Quito: "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"


So, stopping mass shootings was the reason that the framers of the Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment?

Who knew?

No, in fact, they incorporated it to make sure there was a supply of available men and arms to defend the country as a militia should the need arise, something which is no longer needed today, which makes it odd that it's held to be so sacred.


The RKBA is held "sacred" because it is the only effective means that The People have to deter tyranny - the one "right" that allows The People to defend all other "rights" if and when government becomes intolerably oppressive.

But of course folks like you believe that all government is inherently and perpetually benevolent, so I wouldn't expect you to "get it".


The way we have to deter tyranny and protect our rights is through use of our voting process to elect the officials that support the will of the people.

Sure, there maybe some loonies out in the woods playing militia dreaming about the day they can take the government down, but it would never happen, and if they tried, they'd be routed in the first fire fight.

Fantasies of armed rebellion are not a valid reason for firearm ownership.
 
2013-09-18 11:54:25 AM  
Phinn:

Would you like to know who commits most of the gun crime in the USA?

Pretty sure 100% of them are people with guns.
 
2013-09-18 11:55:35 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: The way we have to deter tyranny and protect our rights is through use of our voting process to elect the officials that support the will of the people.


Except when the other side wins an election, then democracy has been subverted/ended.
 
2013-09-18 11:55:47 AM  

AirForceVet: /Too many Americans love their guns too much


So, stop liking what you don't like then?
 
2013-09-18 11:55:57 AM  

supayoda: Elegy: Unless you're suggesting we disqualify anyone from the list that has ever served in the military or police.

Nobody's going to claim that they don't count, per se, but again... The point being made is that there is a vast difference between "armed person" and "armed civilian." To say that something was stopped by an "armed civilian" would imply that said person has had no professional military or law enforcement training, and I think we can all agree that there is a vast difference between someone who has had that training and someone who hasn't and how each would react in these situations. The idea seems to be among some that simply having a gun (no training) would be enough to stop these things. That isn't necessarily the case.

I'm personally all for guns, but I also strongly believe that people should be required to go through basic firearms training at the very least. I've told the story at least a dozen times of the woman I encountered who was going on about her new gun and how she couldn't tell whether or not it was loaded. If Darwin only took out the stupid ones where guns were concerned, I wouldn't be so worried about people like her.


Bizarre argument is bizarre argument, because it ignores that many "armed civilians" with a ccw either: a)spend more time on the range than the police officers you proport to be highly trained; b) hasn't gone through a civilian training course (as many ccw holders have for "fun" and education; c) that off duty military and police officers aren't civilians when they are off duty; and d) that any state will license you for a CCW without a mandatory training course.

It's just a bizarre line of argument. Heinlein-esque, even.

Are there idiots that own guns? You bet. But I think you're failing to realize that many, many CCW holders are military/ex-military or cops/ex-cops precisely BECAUSE they see the value of having a weapon at all times.

My google-fu is failing me and I can't find any hard data, but I would be willing to bet (ex)military and (ex)cops are vastly over represented on the CCW rolls when compared with the general population, so there's probably a self-selection bias towards service members/cops being involved in these sorts of incidents.
 
2013-09-18 12:00:09 PM  
No, in fact, they incorporated the 2nd Amendment it to make sure there was a supply of available men and arms to defend the country as a militia should the need arise, something which is no longer needed today, which makes it odd that it's held to be so sacred.


Fascinating interpretation, bro!
 
2013-09-18 12:01:29 PM  

hasty ambush: Now they are kept "secure" in what amount to a locked vault (a practice started before Clinton):


Thank god. We had enough shootings at Fort Hood the two years I was there without weapons available to the Troop. And that was years before Major Dickface went nuts.

Two incidents where people did drive-bys of formations. It was nuts. Probably because everyone was cheating on everyone and drugs were rampant.
 
2013-09-18 12:03:03 PM  

Amos Quito: TuteTibiImperes: Amos Quito: "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"


So, stopping mass shootings was the reason that the framers of the Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment?

Who knew?

No, in fact, they incorporated it to make sure there was a supply of available men and arms to defend the country as a militia should the need arise, something which is no longer needed today, which makes it odd that it's held to be so sacred.


The RKBA is held "sacred" because it is the only effective means that The People have to deter tyranny - the one "right" that allows The People to defend all other "rights" if and when government becomes intolerably oppressive.

But of course folks like you believe that all government is inherently and perpetually benevolent, so I wouldn't expect you to "get it".


Look out folks, we got us a capitalizer.
 
2013-09-18 12:04:17 PM  
i eat my cereal with a gun.
 
2013-09-18 12:04:44 PM  

Klaumbaz: Salon Fail

Off duty cop, carrying his pistol..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting


Honestly, I'm surprised we got this far w/o The Great "What Is A Civilian?" Debate.
 
2013-09-18 12:06:58 PM  
drunk driving is illegal, but it still happens!  What a stupid law.
 
2013-09-18 12:08:51 PM  

feckingmorons: That is simply untrue.

The Clackamas Town Center shooting was stopped by an armed civilian. He however didn't shoot the gunman, the criminal fled after seeing the armed citizen.


According the guy with the CWP who initially hid and didn't come forward with the story until a day or two later.  The only reason we even know that guy's story is because pro-gun folks picked it up as "evidence" that an armed citizen can stop a shooter.

The ONLY responsible thing about that shady knucklehead is that he didn't pull the trigger himself.
 
2013-09-18 12:18:36 PM  

Phinn: Phinn: Gothnet: Phinn: Would you like to know who commits most of the gun crime in the USA?

Gah! Trying again...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1862771


Oh, so it's people that do not resemble the Swiss or t