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 91
    More: Obvious, making excuses, New York City Police Department  
•       •       •

10873 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Sep 2013 at 3:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-17 09:28:18 PM
10 votes:
What a coincidence - not a single mass shooting was stopped by gun control laws.
2013-09-17 08:34:31 PM
10 votes:
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 09:12:00 PM
8 votes:
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 08:31:05 PM
7 votes:
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 08:59:50 PM
6 votes:
Folks, U.S. citizens love their guns and love violence.  Until the culture changes you're pissing into the wind.
2013-09-17 08:18:52 PM
6 votes:
Salon fail. Pearl MS was stopped by an Asst principal
2013-09-17 09:44:03 PM
5 votes:

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.
2013-09-18 03:11:25 AM
4 votes:
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.
2013-09-17 08:56:24 PM
4 votes:

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


How heavy are those goalposts? And what does Mother Jones have to do with anything?
2013-09-18 06:47:41 AM
3 votes:
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.
2013-09-17 09:49:49 PM
3 votes:

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 09:20:19 PM
3 votes:
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 09:16:43 PM
3 votes:

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 09:14:07 PM
3 votes:

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 08:52:32 PM
3 votes:

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 08:27:31 PM
3 votes:
Well, that's because guns aren't allowed in areas where mass shootings occur.  It's the law.  Guns, outlaws, etc. whatever.
2013-09-18 05:27:35 AM
2 votes:
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 04:43:52 AM
2 votes:

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 04:25:36 AM
2 votes:
How many of you don't care whether a fellow motorist has a valid driver's license or not?
2013-09-18 01:17:30 AM
2 votes:

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 12:35:45 AM
2 votes:

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


Mass murders must be so inconvenient for you!
2013-09-18 12:04:05 AM
2 votes:

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.
2013-09-17 11:48:20 PM
2 votes:

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.
433 [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 11:21:22 PM
2 votes:
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 10:33:20 PM
2 votes:

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 10:18:20 PM
2 votes:
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 10:05:57 PM
2 votes:

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 09:54:58 PM
2 votes:

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 09:33:23 PM
2 votes:

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 09:11:49 PM
2 votes:

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 09:04:08 PM
2 votes:

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 08:55:30 PM
2 votes:
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 08:35:02 PM
2 votes:
With two mass shootings at military installations, it's clear that we need to arm our soldiers.
2013-09-17 08:26:30 PM
2 votes:

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


The U.S. Army Reserve Commander assistant principal?
2013-09-18 09:20:18 PM
1 votes:
"Hey guys, how do we measure the effect of fire hydrants at home?""I know! Let's see how many forest fires are put out by homeowners!"
Plus it's Salon, and the headline doesn't exactly inspire confidence about the integrity of the statistic.
2013-09-18 11:45:16 AM
1 votes:

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 11:39:49 AM
1 votes:

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 11:24:45 AM
1 votes:

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 10:34:41 AM
1 votes:

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 09:57:51 AM
1 votes:
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 09:46:23 AM
1 votes:

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 08:06:54 AM
1 votes:

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 08:00:49 AM
1 votes:
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 07:54:14 AM
1 votes:
Headline is misleading.  Should read:   In the past 30 years every single mass shooting occurred by mentally deranged people.
2013-09-18 07:34:04 AM
1 votes:
Isn't the headline blatently retarded?  If it was stopped it didn't become a mass shooting.
2013-09-18 07:17:02 AM
1 votes:
2013-09-18 07:14:18 AM
1 votes:

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 07:13:33 AM
1 votes:
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 07:07:12 AM
1 votes:
That is because they stopped it before it became a mass shooting.
2013-09-18 06:25:24 AM
1 votes:

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 05:29:27 AM
1 votes:

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 04:42:16 AM
1 votes:

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 04:33:43 AM
1 votes:

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


Wrong.

And this isn't Japan.
2013-09-18 04:27:51 AM
1 votes:

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 04:19:38 AM
1 votes:
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 04:12:32 AM
1 votes:

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 04:10:21 AM
1 votes:
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 03:49:53 AM
1 votes:

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 03:44:23 AM
1 votes:

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 03:35:08 AM
1 votes:
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 01:28:27 AM
1 votes:

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 01:01:42 AM
1 votes:
According to a

It's sarcasm folks, Mother Jones is like The Onion with less accurate facts and hardly any humor.
2013-09-17 11:52:21 PM
1 votes:

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 11:48:27 PM
1 votes:

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 11:45:44 PM
1 votes:

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 11:29:33 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-09-17 11:27:39 PM
1 votes:

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 11:04:54 PM
1 votes:

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 10:46:05 PM
1 votes:

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 10:42:36 PM
1 votes:

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 10:33:13 PM
1 votes:

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 10:29:23 PM
1 votes:
Bullfarking shiat Salon. Here's 9 of them since 1997
2013-09-17 10:27:22 PM
1 votes:

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 10:20:08 PM
1 votes:

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 10:19:16 PM
1 votes:

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 10:12:34 PM
1 votes:

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 10:07:39 PM
1 votes:

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 10:06:10 PM
1 votes:
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 10:05:11 PM
1 votes:

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 10:02:56 PM
1 votes:

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 09:53:05 PM
1 votes:

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 09:41:07 PM
1 votes:

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 09:34:39 PM
1 votes:

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 09:33:26 PM
1 votes:

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 09:31:25 PM
1 votes:

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 09:29:48 PM
1 votes:

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 09:22:45 PM
1 votes:

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 08:55:26 PM
1 votes:

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 08:51:13 PM
1 votes:
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 08:43:41 PM
1 votes:

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 08:36:26 PM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 91 of 91 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report