Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#502 Jan 24 2013 at 4:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
gbaji wrote:
stuff


A trained person responding to a threat is certainly the ideal situation. It's what you'd want, if someone is going to confront a shooter in a school you want them to know what they're doing, have the best chance of success, and minimal change of causing more harm than good. Well for my money at least, if someone is going to be carrying a firearm on a campus they **** well better be trained. The issue is two-fold for me from that point:

1) Are there going to be people in place who are pre-trained to respond quickly with a firearm?

2) If so, who's paying for that training? If not, are we letting untrained people have guns? Or are we hiring security people? Or requiring training perhaps?

I imagine there may be cases where you can find no shortage of properly trained people who are willing to carry a firearm and protect their students, but I doubt that's going to be a universal situation. Which is where my concern lies, which is why I'd wonder if using a military-trained person in an example is the most relevant case. It's not going to be the universal situation, and how we'd address that is more of a concern than whether or not someone properly trained can respond appropriately.

Edited, Jan 24th 2013 2:09pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#503 Jan 24 2013 at 4:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When off duty a member of the military (and the police for that matter) is a civilian legally.
Wow, one statement wrong in two ways. You're only considered "civilian" off duty if you're E4 or below, and even if you want to try to suggest an E4 was commander his training doesn't disappear when he is off duty.


He's not allowed to carry a weapon in a school zone. Stop arguing irrelevant semantics. In this entire thread, the phrase "armed civilian" has been used to mean anyone who is not an on duty member of law enforcement/security legally authorized to carry a weapon in the area in question. You're now going to jump in at the eleventh hour and insist that we use a different meaning? This is doubly bizarre because Joph and I earlier got into the exact opposite argument, with him arguing that the odds of a former marine being on campus and thus capable of successfully confronting and stopping a shooter at school was low. So now you're going to argue that we should discount people who are current for former members of the military because they're not "civilians"?


That's ridiculous and you **** well know it. I'm assuming by your increasingly bizarre and trollish methodology that you've realized I'm right and are now just arguing for the sake of arguing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#504 Jan 24 2013 at 4:30 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Stop arguing irrelevant semantics.
I'll tell you what: you stop bringing in things you believe are facts, and I'll stop having to correct them. Deal?
gbaji wrote:
So now you're going to argue that we should discount people who are current for former members of the military because they're not "civilians"?
That's not the argument. For the nth time, your own claims have been that a random civilian would without a doubt save lives if a gun was somewhere on the premises. You went as far as claiming that there were CASES of it happening; Civilians running half a mile to get their guns. When asked for proof, you've fallen woefully short, but instead of saying "oops," and finding another story that might better suit your hypothetical you've decided instead to double down and back pedal as only you can in the hopes that we'd forget your original claims. You crying "irrelevant semantics" is pretty much "well that disproves me so ignore it!"

And I noticed you called me a troll. Much like the Dread Pirate Roberts, I'll admit it with pride. Too bad for you that even with trolling I can still use facts and common sense, whereas you as a contrarian have to go out of your way to insist those very facts and common sense are irrelevant because it's the only way to be on the opposite side of any debate.

Edited, Jan 24th 2013 6:02pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#505 Jan 24 2013 at 5:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Most people who obtain carry permits do have police or military training.

[citation needed]
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#506 Jan 24 2013 at 5:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
stuff


A trained person responding to a threat is certainly the ideal situation. It's what you'd want, if someone is going to confront a shooter in a school you want them to know what they're doing, have the best chance of success, and minimal change of causing more harm than good. Well for my money at least, if someone is going to be carrying a firearm on a campus they **** well better be trained.


Most people who obtain carry permits for firearms have some degree of training. It's usually required to get the permit. What I've been arguing all along is to remove the moronic restrictions which prohibit those who already have those permits from carrying their weapons in various areas. Specifically school zones.


Quote:
The issue is two-fold for me from that point:

1) Are there going to be people in place who are pre-trained to respond quickly with a firearm?


Who knows? I'm not talking about mandating anything. I'm talking about removing an existing restriction on firearm carry laws. The point is that right now, even if there are several members of a school faculty with the skills and training to deal with a shooter, they are hindered by the fact that they are required to leave their firearms off campus. We can talk about training people on campus as well, but how about we start by removing the law which currently ensures that even if such a trained person is on campus, they can't have their weapon with them?

Quote:
2) If so, who's paying for that training? If not, are we letting untrained people have guns? Or are we hiring security people? Or requiring training perhaps?


What I'm proposing costs no money at all. There are probably tens of thousands of people who work in schools right now who are sufficiently capable of intervening in a shooting incident who are currently disarmed and thus unable to do so as effectively as they could. This is a free resource which could help protect our children which we are throwing away. I'm just suggesting that we not do that.

Quote:
I imagine there may be cases where you can find no shortage of properly trained people who are willing to carry a firearm and protect their students, but I doubt that's going to be a universal situation.


Sure. But some is better than none, right? We currently have laws which actually prohibit those who do have the training and expertise from being able to effectively act in the event a school shooting occurs. To me that's crazy.


Quote:
Which is where my concern lies, which is why I'd wonder if using a military-trained person in an example is the most relevant case.


It's a case that shows us that had he not had to run so far to get to his gun, maybe more lives could have been saved. Obviously, we can't say exactly what would have happened, nor can we guaranteed outcomes in the future. But we can tilts the odds in favor of saving student lives, and I think that's worth doing given the nearly zero risk and cost this would entail.

Quote:
It's not going to be the universal situation, and how we'd address that is more of a concern than whether or not someone properly trained can respond appropriately.


I'm not sure why you think that. If we waited to do something until it could be done universally, we'd never do anything. Do you wait to install an alarm system in your home until all your neighbors can install them? No. You install yours in your home, and you let your neighbor worry about installing theirs in their home. Similarly, why should a school be forced to wait to be allowed to let their faculty bring weapons to school to help protect their students until there's some federal universal assurance that all schools will be able to do so? That seems strange to me. Just remove the restriction and let the schools decide on their own how to move forward. That seems like a reasonable course of action to me.


That's not to say we can't also pursue other courses, but there's no rational reason not to do this right now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#507 Jan 24 2013 at 5:41 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I'm assuming by your increasingly bizarre and trollish methodology that you've realized I'm right and are now just arguing for the sake of arguing.


Hmm there is irony in there I just can't figure out where...
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#508 Jan 24 2013 at 5:42 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,294 posts
Most people who obtain carry permits do have police or military training.

Possibly true in blue states. Highly unlikely in red states.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#509 Jan 24 2013 at 5:48 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,949 posts
Educate me... Do you need a concealed license in order to purchase a firearm?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#510 Jan 24 2013 at 5:50 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Most states only require a photo ID, a background check, and to pay the merchant.

Or go to a gunshow and you can skip two of those steps.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#511 Jan 24 2013 at 5:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Most people who obtain carry permits do have police or military training.

[citation needed]


Don't have one. May have even made it up. Who knows. There are about 3 million active and reserve members of the military in the US, and about 20 million former/retired military. Add to that about 800k active police officers, plus however many retired officers may exist (presumably not the same high ratio as former military, but I couldn't find any easy numbers). Realize that there are currently about 6 million concealed carry permits in the US.

While we could speculate that there's a huge number of folks who've never been in the military or police or any profession in which they would have carried a weapon and thus received training with them who then on their own decide to go out and get concealed carry permits, but it seems reasonable (if we're speculating) to assume it's more likely that those former groups make up the majority of those who obtain such permits. I'll certainly acknowledge I could be wrong though.

It's still somewhat irrelevant. To obtain a permit you generally do have to take some kind of training. Is it "police or military" training? No. Is it still more than aunt Myrtle picking up her husbands old shotgun for the first time in her life? Yes. And isn't the point here about whether those faculty who might be bringing firearms into school zones would be sufficiently capable of using them safely and effectively? And more to the point, there's nothing preventing each school or district from setting their own rules for this either.

I'm just saying to empower the schools by removing the laws which currently tie their hands.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#512 Jan 24 2013 at 5:53 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,949 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Most states only require a photo ID, a background check, and to pay the merchant.

Or go to a gunshow and you can skip two of those steps.


So, is it safe to assume that there is a notable percentage of people who legally bought weapons and illegally conceal them at one point in time?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#513 Jan 24 2013 at 5:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Educate me... Do you need a concealed license in order to purchase a firearm?


No. But you do need one in order to carry one concealed on your person. Which is the relevant point here since I'm arguing that concealed carry by civilians (non on-duty police for the stupid) would help reduce the fatality rate from mass shootings (or potential mass shootings).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#514 Jan 24 2013 at 5:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Most states only require a photo ID, a background check, and to pay the merchant.

Or go to a gunshow and you can skip two of those steps.


So, is it safe to assume that there is a notable percentage of people who legally bought weapons and illegally conceal them at one point in time?


Depends on your definition of "notable". I'm sure some small percentage of people might do this. Most will not simply because the penalty for being caught is pretty severe. Two cases where I'd see this happening most would be someone who bought his gun legally and then decides to use it for a crime (he'll conceal it while going to/from the crime scene) and someone who buys a gun for protection and is afraid for his safety, but lives in a state that does not allow concealed carry (or makes it ridiculously difficult to obtain), so decides he's more willing to risk the legal penalties than the danger of not being able to defend himself.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#515 Jan 24 2013 at 6:00 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
clowns (non on-duty police for the stupid)
gbaji wrote:
horses (non on-duty police for the stupid)
gbaji wrote:
ballerinas (non on-duty police for the stupid)
gbaji wrote:
dinosaurs (non on-duty police for the stupid)
I mean, if you're going to use the wrong term you might as well reach for the stars.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#516 Jan 24 2013 at 6:05 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,949 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Educate me... Do you need a concealed license in order to purchase a firearm?


No. But you do need one in order to carry one concealed on your person. Which is the relevant point here since I'm arguing that concealed carry by civilians (non on-duty police for the stupid) would help reduce the fatality rate from mass shootings (or potential mass shootings).


How will it help prevent mass shootings?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#517 Jan 24 2013 at 6:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Most people who obtain carry permits do have police or military training.

[citation needed]

So my dad is military? Huh. Never knew.
#518 Jan 24 2013 at 6:24 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,949 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Most people who obtain carry permits do have police or military training.

[citation needed]

So my dad is military? Huh. Never knew.


Being off duty doesn't make you a civilian. I'm not sure how the reserve/guard works though.

Edited, Jan 25th 2013 2:24am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#519 Jan 24 2013 at 6:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Most people who obtain carry permits do have police or military training.

[citation needed]
Don't have one. May have even made it up. Who knows.

I know. You made it up. It may be accurate in a "threw a wild pitch and hit despite yourself" sort of way but you made it up.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#520 Jan 24 2013 at 6:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Most people who obtain carry permits do have police or military training.

[citation needed]

So my dad is military? Huh. Never knew.


Most people who obtain carry permits are your dad? How many permits does he need? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#521 Jan 24 2013 at 6:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Almalieque wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Educate me... Do you need a concealed license in order to purchase a firearm?


No. But you do need one in order to carry one concealed on your person. Which is the relevant point here since I'm arguing that concealed carry by civilians (non on-duty police for the stupid) would help reduce the fatality rate from mass shootings (or potential mass shootings).


How will it help preventreduce the fatality rate from mass shootings (or potential mass shootings)?


Maybe read the previous 9 pages of this thread? And quote me properly.

There are numerous cases of shootings where the shooter clearly intended to kill enough people to qualify as a mass shooting but where a person in the vicinity with a concealed weapon was able to stop the shooter before he succeeded in kill that many people. The AT&T store shooting. The recent Oregon Mall shooting. A couple of church shootings (can't recall the names off the top of my head). The Pearl High School shooting we've been discussing. I linked to a site listing them earlier. There are quite a few.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#522 Jan 24 2013 at 6:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji's argument for more gun access seems to rely pretty much completely on conjecture. "Well, there's no actual mass shootings that were stopped by a civilian with a gun but all of these COULD have been.... and a teacher COULD have gotten a gun.... and there ABSOLUTELY COULD have been less deaths.... and this COULD have happened... So, in closing, more guns for everyone is obviously the answer!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#523 Jan 24 2013 at 7:21 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Do you have to prove that you've had gun training to get a conceal and carry permit?
#524 Jan 24 2013 at 7:26 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
In NYC you need, and I quote "A license may be granted to an applicant who is of good moral character, who is over 21 years of age, who has not been convicted of a serious offense, who states if and when he has ever been treated for mental illness, who is not subject to a protective court order and to whom no good cause exists for the denial of the license."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#525 Jan 24 2013 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
In NYC you need, and I quote "A license may be granted to an applicant who is of good moral character, who is over 21 years of age, who has not been convicted of a serious offense, who states if and when he has ever been treated for mental illness, who is not subject to a protective court order and to whom no good cause exists for the denial of the license."



That kind of sounds like Hawaii. From what I understand, conceal and carry permits are handed out at the sole discretion of the chief of police, and he basically denies everyone.
#526 Jan 24 2013 at 7:34 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,294 posts
Do you have to prove that you've had gun training to get a conceal and carry permit?

Varies wildly by jurisdiction, but in most cases the concealing part doesn't require special training. Some states require training to own. In many states there are broad exemptions. If I recall correctly, in Virginia anyone could conceal if they were traveling from home to work. Wasn't an issue for me as my place of work had guns enough without me freelancing one in from home. Also would have been frowned upon to the tune of 20 years in federal "pound me in the ass" prison.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#527 Jan 24 2013 at 8:00 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,949 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Educate me... Do you need a concealed license in order to purchase a firearm?


No. But you do need one in order to carry one concealed on your person. Which is the relevant point here since I'm arguing that concealed carry by civilians (non on-duty police for the stupid) would help reduce the fatality rate from mass shootings (or potential mass shootings).


How will it help preventreduce the fatality rate from mass shootings (or potential mass shootings)?


Maybe read the previous 9 pages of this thread? And quote me properly.

There are numerous cases of shootings where the shooter clearly intended to kill enough people to qualify as a mass shooting but where a person in the vicinity with a concealed weapon was able to stop the shooter before he succeeded in kill that many people. The AT&T store shooting. The recent Oregon Mall shooting. A couple of church shootings (can't recall the names off the top of my head). The Pearl High School shooting we've been discussing. I linked to a site listing them earlier. There are quite a few.

Two things:
1. Your correction has been my point the "last 9 pages". The primary concern is to prevent mass shootings, not reduce the causalities.

2. You stated "potential mass shootings". "Prevent" wasn't meant to be taken as an absolute. If your solution PREVENTED a "potential mass shooting" from occurring, then it PREVENTED a potential mass shooting. So, I ask again, how does having a concealed weapon prevent a "potential mass shooting" any more beneficially than an armed guard? If anything, I would rather have an armed guard as a deterrent.

Smasharoo wrote:
Do you have to prove that you've had gun training to get a conceal and carry permit?

Varies wildly by jurisdiction, but in most cases the concealing part doesn't require special training. Some states require training to own. In many states there are broad exemptions. If I recall correctly, in Virginia anyone could conceal if they were traveling from home to work. Wasn't an issue for me as my place of work had guns enough without me freelancing one in from home. Also would have been frowned upon to the tune of 20 years in federal "pound me in the ass" prison.


Thanks. Just giving me ammo on how the term "law abiding citizen" is a misleading joke.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#528 Jan 24 2013 at 8:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
In NYC you need, and I quote "A license may be granted to an applicant who is of good moral character, who is over 21 years of age, who has not been convicted of a serious offense, who states if and when he has ever been treated for mental illness, who is not subject to a protective court order and to whom no good cause exists for the denial of the license."


The last bit is relevant. NY is a "may issue" state, which means that the issuance of permits is at the discretion of law enforcement. Which typically means that they don't issue them except to law enforcement or actively employed private security (cause no one else has a "good cause" to have one). These are some of the most restrictive states.

Most states are "shall issue", which means that as long as the predefined conditions for the permit are met the state cannot deny a permit. But since conditions are set by law, they are often fairly strict, and usually require some form of training course be completed, proficiency test passed, background checks, fingerprints on file, etc.

Point being that for these states, which make up all but six of the states in the US, the average guy who just buys a gun at the corner store can't just walk around with his gun on him. So this fear that yahoos without skill or training or restraint would go in guns blazing and make things worse is relatively unfounded.

Of the remaining six states, four have no restriction, meaning anyone who can legally own a gun can legally carry it (there are some restriction which vary by state though). So if you happen to live in Alaska, Wyoming, Arizona, or Vermont, anyone might be packing.

There are two states (um... sorta) with "no issue" laws. DC and Illinois.

If we're tossing out semi-random information...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#529 Jan 24 2013 at 8:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Most people who obtain carry permits do have police or military training.

[citation needed]

So my dad is military? Huh. Never knew.


Most people who obtain carry permits are your dad? How many permits does he need? Smiley: dubious

Apparently a lot, since he's going to have to defend all those kids in all those schools from would-be mass murderers.
#530 Jan 24 2013 at 8:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Almalieque wrote:
1. Your correction has been my point the "last 9 pages". The primary concern is to prevent mass shootings, not reduce the fatalities.


Says who? I think there's 10 families in Newtown who would be more than happy if we'd manage to reduce the number of children who died from 20 to 10.

Quote:
2. You stated "potential mass shootings". "Prevent" wasn't meant to be taken as an absolute. If your solution PREVENTED a "potential mass shooting" from occurring, then it PREVENTED a potential mass shooting.


Because I don't want to get caught up in yet another semantic argument. Some nutter has already tried to make issue with the use of the word "prevent". Also, I don't want people trying to play games with the definition of "mass shooting". It's a tricky semantic situation when you have to carefully pick your words because you're posting on a forum where the slightest mistake, no matter how clear your intent was, will be taken out of context and twisted around.

If I say that an armed civilian with a concealed firearm may be able to end a mass shooting, then folks like Joph will jump in with the Mother Jones study showing how few mass shootings end with armed civilian intervention. This is because a "mass shooting" is defined as a single shooting event in which there are 4 or more victim fatalities. So any intervention of an armed civilian which stopped the shooting short of 4 victim fatalities doesn't count as "ending a mass shooting".

If I say that an armed civilian with a concealed firearm may be able to prevent a mass shooting (preventing 4 people from being killed and thus becoming a mass shooting in the first place), nutters like yourself will ignore the mass shooting definition Joph uses and argue in terms of shooting in general. You'll say that since it's unlikely for the armed civilian to be right there and stop the shooter before he can shoot anyone, he's therefore not going to be able to "prevent" the mass shooting.

I used the phrasing I did to try to avoid repeating the same silly semantic BS you guys keep tossing at me. Of course, even when I do this, someone like Lolgaxe will jump in with "but a reserve member of the military isn't a civilian!" argument. Sigh...

Quote:
So, I ask again, how does having a concealed weapon prevent a "potential mass shooting" any more beneficially than an armed guard? If anything, I would rather have an armed guard as a deterrent.


Stop saying "prevent a potential mass shooting". As I pointed out above, you're changing my words so as to create a strawman. It may reduce the number of fatalities in a mass shooting or potential mass shooting. Again, I'm using that language, not because it's concise, and not because it's necessary, but because there are a handful of posters here who are freaking idiots.

I've already answered this. To you directly IIRC. It's funny how you guys get **** that repeat myself, but then you keep asking the exact same questions I've already answered (or continue to argue as though I'd never answered). There are multiple reasons:

1. Armed guards cost money. lessening restrictions on where people can concealed carry guns allow those people to be in any random area while costing us nothing.

2. Armed guards cannot be everywhere. Same deal. There's a chance of a person with a concealed carry gun being in any area at any time, as long as that area isn't one designated as as gun free zone.

3. Armed guards are obviously armed guards, so shooters will tend to start shooting where they are not (or shoot the guard first). A shooter can't know if there's someone with a concealed weapon nearby when he starts shooting, and even if he suspects there might be, he doesn't know who and thus can't really do anything to avoid them.

There are probably more reasons than that, but those are the first and most obvious 3 that just pop out at me.

Edited, Jan 24th 2013 6:29pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#531 Jan 24 2013 at 8:28 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Of course, even when I do this, someone like Lolgaxe will jump in with "but a reserve member of the military isn't a civilian!" argument.
It's not an argument, it's a straight up fact.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#532 Jan 24 2013 at 8:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If I say that an armed civilian with a concealed firearm may be able to end a mass shooting, then folks like Joph will jump in with the Mother Jones study showing how few mass shootings end with armed civilian intervention. This is because a "mass shooting" is defined as a single shooting event in which there are 4 or more victim fatalities. So any intervention of an armed civilian which stopped the shooting short of 4 victim fatalities doesn't count as "ending a mass shooting".

Correct. Because real quantifiable terms with real data matter. Not just daydreams of all the shootings some random guy with a gun could have stopped or all the murders some other guy would have committed.

Quote:
If I say that an armed civilian with a concealed firearm may be able to prevent a mass shooting (preventing 4 people from being killed and thus becoming a mass shooting in the first place), nutters like yourself will ignore the mass shooting definition Joph uses and argue in terms of shooting in general.

Because, again, you're just guessing and using daydreams and conjecture in lieu of any actual evidence. Like trying to use the recent mall shooting as evidence when absolutely none exists that the guy with the gun had any impact at all on what happened (in fact, a review of the events would suggest he had zero).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#533 Jan 24 2013 at 8:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Of course, even when I do this, someone like Lolgaxe will jump in with "but a reserve member of the military isn't a civilian!" argument.
It's not an argument, it's a straight up fact.


A fact that has no bearing on the issue being discussed though. Do you really want me to write "armed person who is not an on-duty police or security guard nor who has any specific authorization under the law to carry a weapon as part of his employment responsibilities in the area in question but who has a legal permit to carry a weapon and is carrying one at the time". Or can we just assume that's what is meant in this context by the phrase "armed civilian with a concealed carry weapon"?

Do you see why I keep saying that this is a purely semantic argument? Yes, I'm using the word civilian in a different way than you'd like. Deal with it. From a domestic law enforcement standpoint members of the military are civilians just like everyone else. They have no special rights or powers. They certainly have no special exemption within the law being discussed. So while your "fact" may be true in some context, it's utterly irrelevant in this one. So get over yourself, ok?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#534 Jan 24 2013 at 8:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
What if it was a civilian with a long rifle? Literally?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#535 Jan 24 2013 at 8:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If I say that an armed civilian with a concealed firearm may be able to end a mass shooting, then folks like Joph will jump in with the Mother Jones study showing how few mass shootings end with armed civilian intervention. This is because a "mass shooting" is defined as a single shooting event in which there are 4 or more victim fatalities. So any intervention of an armed civilian which stopped the shooting short of 4 victim fatalities doesn't count as "ending a mass shooting".

Correct. Because real quantifiable terms with real data matter. Not just daydreams of all the shootings some random guy with a gun could have stopped or all the murders some other guy would have committed.


Average number of fatalities when a mass shooting or potential mass shooting ends with police/security intervention: 14.29
Average number of fatalities when a mass shooting or potential mass shooting ends with civilian (that's everyone else for the lolgaxes out there) intervention: 2.33

How that's for quantifiable data? Are we done yet?

Quote:
Because, again, you're just guessing and using daydreams and conjecture in lieu of any actual evidence. Like trying to use the recent mall shooting as evidence when absolutely none exists that the guy with the gun had any impact at all on what happened (in fact, a review of the events would suggest he had zero).


Except that the guy came loaded with enough ammunition to kill a **** of a lot more people, but when he saw someone with a gun pointed at him, he retreated and then killed himself. How is that not evidence of impact. What review of events are you basing your position on? The one's that ignored that he was even there? The ones that claimed it was "quick police response" that saved the day? The guy was dead 5 minutes before the police ever showed up on the scene. Obviously we can only speculate how many more people might have died if he hadn't been confronted by an armed person, but it's absurd to just assume he would have stopped at that point anyway. He fled from the guy with a gun into a service corridor. Then he killed himself.

Which is more likely. That he planned to stop shooting at that point and it was pure coincidence that there happened to be an armed person with a gun pointed at him (who only didn't fire because he saw other people behind the shooter and in the line of fire, something the shooter could not have known), or that he saw someone with a gun pointed at him and decided to attempt to flee, thus not killing any more people? You're free to guess the former, but I think most reasonable and rational people would go the other way on this one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#536 Jan 24 2013 at 8:57 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yes, I'm using the word civilian in a different way than you'd like.
It really doesn't hurt my feelings that you're hellbent at pointing at a cat and screaming and flailing that it's an elephant. It's what kindergarteners do. My daughter occasionally does it, and I correct her too. Maybe you don't realize, but at some point it stops being cute. It starts appearing like a severe learning disability.
gbaji wrote:
So while your "fact" may be true in some context, it's utterly irrelevant in this one.
I know the English language and facts are irrelevant to you, but some people do actually find them relevant when they're trying to present arguments.
gbaji wrote:
So get over yourself, ok?
I'm humble enough to admit that I'm just far too great to be able to simply get over. I can try but I don't believe the outcome will turn me into the drooling mess of a lemming you're content with being.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#537 Jan 24 2013 at 9:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
What's the difference beween the Clackamas and Westview mall shootings? Both were committed by a single individual. Both used semi-automatic rifles which would commonly be called "assault weapons" by the anti-gun crowd. Both brought significant amount of ammunition (at least 60 rounds in Westview and more than that in Clackamas). Both ended in the shooter committing suicide. Both clearly meant to kill as many people as possible before taking their own lives.

The difference? Clackamas shooter was confronted by an armed civilian with a concealed weapon and only two people died. Westview shooter was not and nine people died. Why is this relevant? Because it means that the one in which the civilian with the concealed weapon ended the shooting does not qualify as a "mass shooting" and thus doesn't show up in the statistics Joph likes to quote. Um... But don't we want shootings to not become mass shootings? Any reasonably intelligent person should prefer the Clackamas outcome to the Westview outcome, yet according to Joph there's no reason to because once a shooting results in 4 victims dying, the odds of a civilian intervening is very low.

That's bizarre logic all the way around. The odds of civilian intervention preventing a shooting from becoming a mass shooting in the first place appears to be pretty high. The logical conclusion is that the reason so few mass shootings are ended by civilian intervention is because when civilians intervene the shootings tend not to become mass shootings in the first place. Which is why we should maximize the odds that there might be an armed civilian in the area instead of minimizing them. Strangely, our current laws do the exact opposite in the areas we claim to most want to protect. It's almost like we want as many children to die in school shootings as possible.

Edited, Jan 24th 2013 7:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#538 Jan 24 2013 at 9:20 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Westroads.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#539 Jan 24 2013 at 9:45 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Westroads.


Lol. Yeah. Westroads. You got me man! I made a mistake. Alert the media.

we have a chain of malls called Westview around here, so sue me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#540 Jan 24 2013 at 9:47 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Alert the media.
Do you want me to pull at the strings of your little claim or you want to simply thank me for leaving it at that? Because, hoo are there some really big holes.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#541 Jan 24 2013 at 9:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Average number of fatalities when a mass shooting or potential mass shooting ends with police/security intervention: 14.29
Average number of fatalities when a mass shooting or potential mass shooting ends with civilian (that's everyone else for the lolgaxes out there) intervention: 2.33

How that's for quantifiable data?

Worthless. "Potential" isn't quantifiable.
Quote:
Except that the guy came loaded with enough ammunition to kill a **** of a lot more people, but when he saw someone with a gun pointed at him, he retreated and then killed himself. How is that not evidence of impact.

He didn't kill a "hell of a lot more people" because he spent his time firing at the ceiling and shouting warnings. He fired off sixty rounds and killed two people. His gun jammed, he took the time to unjam it and then moved downstairs before shooting himself. Does this sound like he said "Oh no, a guy over there! Got to kill myself now before he shoots at me!"?

The account from the guy with the gun wasn't even that he was confronting the shooter or training his weapon on him, just that "I know he saw me". It's one guy telling a story and giving himself credit.
Quote:
He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."
The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.
"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.
Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.
"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

Although the last line is kind of funny. No man, the second to the last round was the one he killed himself with. Smiley: rolleyes

I know cowboy stories about how the shooter fled in terror after seeing a gun and killed himself make better Tales Of Amazing Gun-Warriors for you and the NRA but nothing actually backs it up.

Edited, Jan 24th 2013 9:56pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#542 Jan 25 2013 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
His head would explode in a spray of tears if he knew Meli was a security guard at that mall on his day off.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#543 Jan 25 2013 at 9:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,294 posts
The difference? Clackamas shooter was confronted by an armed civilian with a concealed weapon and only two people died.

Yeah, other than that identical. The pathology of the shooter is clearly exactly the same. You're either a crazy mass murder who wants to kill as many people as possible unless you see a gun, then you kill yourself, or you're a well adjusted upstanding citizen with fastidious training who can prevent anything with your magic boomstick. Apples to apples, definitely.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#544 Jan 25 2013 at 9:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
gbaji wrote:
Who knows? I'm not talking about mandating anything. I'm talking about removing an existing restriction on firearm carry laws.


Yeah, I'm sorry. But you're going to have to have more than that before you bring a gun onto my kids campus. I don't particularly care if someone thinks they're responsible and well trained.

An armed guard or police/security officer is one thing, but that's entirely different. I'm less concerned about the rare mass shooting than I am about the more mundane gun crimes.

Quote:
This is a free resource which could help protect our children which we are throwing away. I'm just suggesting that we not do that.


And a massive liability for the school district if something goes wrong. Lawyers will have a field day with this one. Worse than the good Samaritan who tries to do CPR and gets sued because they accidentally made the situation worse.

Quote:
But some is better than none, right?


So what do we do for the rest?

gbaji wrote:
What's the difference beween the Clackamas and Westview mall shootings?


The Clackmas shooter wasn't really within range to hit anyone after the first few shots either. From witness accounts he was also a pretty poor shot. Maybe if he targeted a group of kindergarteners trapped in a classroom he'd of had more luck. Smiley: rolleyes

As long as were making irrelevant comparisons... Linky.

Quote:
On the same day that 20 kindergarten children were killed in Connecticut in a horrific gun attack, 22 students in China were stabbed at an elementary school. A knife-wielding 36-year-old man injured 22 children and one adult outside a primary school in the Henan province village of Chengping located in central China as students were arriving for classes Friday.

...

None of the 22 children that were stabbed have died as a result of the attack according to the Associated Press.


Forget only two deaths. In a country with strict firearm regulations one has to resort to using a knife. The consequence? No one died. I'll repeat that no one died.

Obviously by that comparison the better method is to remove guns entirely.

Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Jan 25th 2013 9:02am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#545 Jan 25 2013 at 10:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The solution is to give teachers knives.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#546 Jan 25 2013 at 10:11 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Technically that is a solid position inside 20 ft a person with a knife holds an advantage over one with a gun.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#547 Jan 25 2013 at 10:13 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,818 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The solution is to give teachers knives.
Box-cutters for extra utility.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#548 Jan 25 2013 at 10:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The solution is to give teachers knives.

Not without concealed knife safety courses.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#549 Jan 25 2013 at 10:17 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Elinda wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The solution is to give teachers knives.
Box-cutters for extra utility.


I thought those were only useful in high jacking planes. Oh and cutting boxes of course.


Edited, Jan 25th 2013 11:17am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#550 Jan 25 2013 at 10:19 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
What's shocking is that there wasn't a single gun-fu martial artist in that school.

Edited, Jan 25th 2013 11:37am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#551 Jan 25 2013 at 10:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Box-cutters for extra utility.
I thought those were only useful in high jacking planes. Oh and cutting boxes of course.

Well, you follow it up with legislation that all insane mass-shooters must be made out of cardboard.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 56 All times are in CDT
Ikkian, LordMagius, Mazra, yenwangweh, Yodabunny, Anonymous Guests (51)