Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#552 Jan 25 2013 at 7:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Gbaji wrote:

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.


The families of the remaining 10 dead children? Was that a serious question? No one wants their child to be dead. Are you suggesting that if only 5 kids were killed, people would be "well, it could have been worse!"?

Why do you think there was an issue of going back to the same school? Even if no one died, it's an emotional scare and overall fear for parents and children.

Gbaji wrote:
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...


You confused yourself into this cycle that you created because you're not providing any suggestions to stop shootings/mass or not. That's the thing. People say "mass shootings" loosely, but the overall concern is the shooting itself. In order to stop/prevent/reduce/etc. a mass shooting, you must stop/prevent/reduce/etc. a person from shooting in the first place.

Gbaji wrote:
Stop saying "prevent a potential mass shooting". As I pointed out above, you're changing my words so as to create a strawman


I'm asking a specific question to the topic. Do you now see the disconnect? Your response does not address preventing mass shootings, which has been the overall concern, not reducing the kill count.

Gbaji wrote:
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:


I debunked every argument that you have thrown my way. If I recall correctly, there are several posts that you haven't responded to. I ask again, because you keep saying the same statement when it has already been countered in posts that you conveniently did not respond to.

Gbaji wrote:
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.


1. Isn't that the point of a security guard? Are you claiming that security costs too much? Are you incapable of producing a budget that can allow the safety of people? What possibly can be more valuable than one's life?

2. So you're assuming that people will play Rambo and furthermore be successful?

3. You think a person is more likely to commit a shooting in front of an armed guard than a random person that may or may not have a gun, that may or may not fire back or may or may not have the ability to hit the shooter

Hmmmmm? I would much rather spend the money and have better faith in trained guards than saving a few bucks and hope that there's a trained gun-slicker out there who is willing to risk their life to kill someone.

Gbaji wrote:

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.


Same deal. That's why there are sectors. Having armed guards do not prevent people from having concealed weapons, it adds to the population of people with guns whose job is to act in those situations.

Gbaji wrote:
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.


Exactly, so if you see an armed guard, then a person is less likely to shoot in that area. Since a person can't tell if a person is carrying a concealed weapon, s/he will fire in the area with no guards. People will die BEFORE Manti Teo's girlfriend that "citizen" takes out the shooter. Where as in the other case, no shots were fired. Thanks for proving my point.

Edited, Jan 26th 2013 3:59am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#553gbaji, Posted: Jan 25 2013 at 9:03 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Except for the account you quoted, which seems to do exactly that. What do you think "going down to pull" means Joph? It means he was moving his finger to the trigger to pull it (to fire the weapon). You wouldn't be about to do that unless you were already pointing the gun. Again, you think the shooter just randomly decided to stop shooting people and instead head down a service hallway and it had nothing at all to do with the armed civilian pointing a gun at him? That seems pretty darn unlikely.
#554 Jan 25 2013 at 9:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,477 posts
Smiley: laughSmiley: lolSmiley: laugh
Smiley: lolSmiley: laughSmiley: lol
Smiley: laughSmiley: lolSmiley: laugh

"Semi-random." Oh that hurt my sides.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#555 Jan 25 2013 at 9:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
We can quibble about the term "potential mass shooting" as used by me...

There is no "quibble". It's just a worthless term. I know you need it because you can't use actual objective facts and so need to present fantasy-land stats as facts about how many ninjas a dinosaur could have killed but what you can't do is present an actual provable statistic about civilians stopping an actual mass shooting. It's really no more complicated than that.

Quote:
Sure. It sounds like he fired semi-randomly (and not too effectively). So what? We're just going to speculate that had he continued to fire for several more minutes uninterrupted, he would have continued to be that inaccurate? You can't make that assumption.

Nor can we make the assumption that he suddenly would have turned into a skilled marksman. What we have is the actual fact that he fired sixty rounds, many of them into the ceiling, and killed two people and seriously injured one other.

Quote:
What accounts are you reading?

I quoted his account. Which one are you reading?

Quote:
The fact is that someone did intervene and only two people died.

I walked into a restaurant today and it snowed. all hail Jophiel, Hungry Snow God. "Intervened" implies a level of causation you've completely failed to prove.

Quote:
I've seen some bizarre disassociation before, but this takes the cake.

Said the guy trying to make Mali into the reason the shooter stopped despite the lack of any evidence...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#556 Jan 25 2013 at 9:29 PM Rating: Good
******
43,477 posts
Jophiel wrote:
What we have is the actual fact that he fired sixty rounds, many of them into the ceiling, and killed two people and seriously injured one other.
We have more than that. We also have the fact that he had a semi-automatic weapon, and was in a crowded mall during Christmas shopping rush. It's complete and utter bullshit to even try to insist the shooter had any intention of murder, much less go on a massive rampage.

Seriously, in that situation the only reasonable conclusion is he wasn't trying to hit people.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#557 Jan 25 2013 at 9:31 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Is that really what "going down to pull" means? I was wondering about that. I thought it might have meant he was about to crouch down and aim. Moving his finger down towards that trigger never entered my mind, but I will admit that makes more sense.
#558 Jan 25 2013 at 9:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
It's complete and utter bullshit to even try to insist the shooter had any intention of murder, much less go on a massive rampage.

Seriously, in that situation the only reasonable conclusion is he wasn't trying to hit people.

Well, he managed to kill two so I don't think it's wrong to say he was intending to kill someone, but he obviously wasn't trying to stand there and mow people down in any intelligent (if insane) fashion.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#559 Jan 25 2013 at 9:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,493 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:

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.


The families of the remaining 10 dead children? Was that a serious question?


It wasn't a question. It was a statement. And no, numskull, the families of the 10 children who wouldn't have died if we managed to reduce the number who died from 20 to 10. You can't really be that dense.

Quote:
No one wants their child to be dead. Are you suggesting that if only 5 kids were killed, people would be "well, it could have been worse!"?


I'm suggesting that if an armed gunman killed a few faculty members and then went into a classroom with 20 kids and started shooting, and after killing 5 kids and showing no signs of stopping a member of the faculty burst into the room with a gun and shot him ending the shooting, the families of the other 15 kids who didn't die would consider him a hero for saving the lives of their children. And of course people would point to how much worse it would have been if that member of the faculty hadn't been armed and hadn't intervened. And that would not reduce the grief felt by the families of the 5 who died one bit. But it would still be a better outcome than otherwise.


The point being that in this case, there was no armed faculty member who burst in and saved any of the children. And that's a tragedy.

Quote:
You confused yourself into this cycle that you created because you're not providing any suggestions to stop shootings/mass or not. That's the thing. People say "mass shootings" loosely, but the overall concern is the shooting itself. In order to stop/prevent/reduce/etc. a mass shooting, you must stop/prevent/reduce/etc. a person from shooting in the first place.


Except that the term as used by the FBI and the Mother Jones study mentioned earlier means specifically 4 victim fatalities. So one can "prevent a mass shooting" without actually preventing the shooting. As long as you prevent 4 or more deaths from occurring.

Quote:
Your response does not address preventing mass shootings, which has been the overall concern, not reducing the kill count.


Except that my entire argument is about reducing the kill count. You're free to insist that something else is more important, but don't demand that I must prove a point that I'm not making.

Quote:
1. Isn't that the point of a security guard? Are you claiming that security costs too much? Are you incapable of producing a budget that can allow the safety of people? What possibly can be more valuable than one's life?


Huh? Armed guards cost money. Allowing people already employed at the school to bring weapons with them costs nothing. You completely failed to respond to the actual point I made.

Quote:
2. So you're assuming that people will play Rambo and furthermore be successful?


Yes. Want to know why? Because there are numerous accounts of them doing exactly this and being successful. Why would you assume they wouldn't?

Quote:
3. You think a person is more likely to commit a shooting in front of an armed guard than a random person that may or may not have a gun, that may or may not fire back or may or may not have the ability to hit the shooter


Huh? Either you miswrote that or you misunderstood what I wrote.

I believe that a person is less likely to commit a shooting in front of an armed guard than elsewhere. Period. The issue of a random person that may or may not have a gun is irrelevant since by definition in order for their to be a shooting with any fatalities there must be other people around for the shooter to shoot. Thus, while the shooter can (and in most cases will) avoid starting his shooting spree right where an armed guard can easily react and stop him, he can't avoid the chance that one of the people in the area he starts shooting might be carrying a concealed weapon and thus be easily able to react and stop him.

Well, unless we pass legislation designating some areas as gun free zones in which it's illegal for anyone who isn't an on duty police or security guard to carry a weapon (concealed or otherwise). In that case, the shooter knows that as long as he avoids an armed guard, no one else will be armed. That's why such legislation is a really bad idea. We're making it easier for the shooter to kill more people in those gun free areas. Ironically we do this in areas with the highest concentration of children. Isn't that incredibly dumb?

Quote:
Same deal. That's why there are sectors. Having armed guards do not prevent people from having concealed weapons, it adds to the population of people with guns whose job is to act in those situations.


Great. I never said we could not also have armed guards.

Quote:
Exactly, so if you see an armed guard, then a person is less likely to shoot in that area. Since a person can't tell if a person is carrying a concealed weapon, s/he will fire in the area with no guards. People will die BEFORE Manti Teo's girlfriend that "citizen" takes out the shooter. Where as in the other case, no shots were fired. Thanks for proving my point.


Huh? No. In both cases, the shooter will most likely start shooting in an area where a guard is not (guard cannot be everywhere, remember?). So in the absence of a civilian carrying a concealed weapon, the shooter can continue to shoot uninterrupted until a guard or police arrive on the scene. In the presence of a civilian carrying a concealed weapon, the shooter may be interrupted earlier than that. So if we want the shooting to end as quickly as possible and minimize the number of fatalities, then we want civilians to be in the area carrying concealed weapons. The more of them the better.

Obviously, it's not guaranteed, but if we have a gun free zone, then there's zero chance of ending the shooting before the police or guard can arrive, whereas if we don't have a gun free zone, there is some chance greater than zero of ending the shooting before the police or guard can arrive. It's about odds and statistics. The more civilians with concealed weapons the greater the odds of someone in the crowd having a firearm and being able to end the shooting before the police/guard arrive. The fewer there are the lower the chance. Again, in a gun free zone, we've dropped those odds to zero.


As I've said repeatedly, my argument isn't about trying to ensure that no one ever tries to commit a mass shooting. I don't think it's possible to do that. My objective is to minimize the number of fatalities when/if those kinds of shootings occur.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#560 Jan 25 2013 at 9:38 PM Rating: Good
******
43,477 posts
Considering the numbers, it's just as realistic to say those two were unfortunate accidents.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#561 Jan 25 2013 at 9:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira wrote:
Is that really what "going down to pull" means? I was wondering about that.

I very much doubt it. From the quote:
Quote:
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.

It reads as "As I was going down to pull [out my weapon], I saw someone..." In other words, as he was drawing his weapon, he noticed other people and decided not to try and fire.

A Google search for "Go down to pull" or "Going down to pull" returns no firearms related hits except that quote over and over. Adding "Go down to pull" +trigger returns nothing relevant at all. Maybe it's a term Gbaji's long rifle friends use all the time or something. This is a guy who romanticized "Don't retreat, reload!" into pressing F5 on your keyboard because that fit his political narrative better.

Edited, Jan 25th 2013 9:45pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#562 Jan 25 2013 at 9:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,493 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
"Semi-random." Oh that hurt my sides.


Yes. Meaning that some of his shots were just fired in random directions, while some of them were fired at specific targets he picked out of the crowd. What often happens in a case like this (and appears to have happened here) is that shooters will tend to fire randomly at first in order to both announce their presence and to force everyone to drop for what cover they can find. This puts some distance around the shooter and decreases the odds of someone jumping him and taking his gun away from him. At the risk of repeating points I've made in past threads, guns are used primarily because they allow one to do harm at a distance while keeping potential harm to oneself at bay. You want your first action in a shooting to clear the crowd away from you. Then you start picking off individual targets.


This is why I discount the idea that because he fired so many shots and only hit three people that he just wasn't trying, or that he would not have killed many more people after reloading. He was in the middle of a courtyard type area in the mall. He announced his presence and cleared the area immediately around him. He was actually headed towards one of the stores, when he stopped to reload(with some problems because his gun jammed). It's at that point that the civilian pointed his gun at the shooter. The shooter saw him, and instead of continuing with his now reloaded gun into the store full of easy targets, he ran into a service hallway.


The theater shooter did a similar thing. He started with his shotgun, firing into the first few rows. Again, this is designed, not to kill people, but to drive them away from him. The motivation of a person with a gun to keep others at a distance. Then he started aiming at people in the farther back rows with his rifle. If someone had pulled out a gun while he was firing his shotgun (yes, semi-randomly) at the front rows and he ran out the back of the theater, would you also discount the lives saved because he hadn't killed very many people and hadn't seemed to have been really trying to target people? That would be silly. We know that because nothing happened to stop him after that initial round of shots, he then proceeded to picking people off more effectively. You can't assume that because one portion of the shooting was inaccurate and ineffective that the whole shooting will remain so.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#563 Jan 25 2013 at 9:51 PM Rating: Good
******
43,477 posts
gbaji wrote:
Meaning that some of his shots were just fired in random directions, while some of them were fired at specific targets he picked out of the crowd. What often happens in a case like this (and appears to have happened here) is that shooters will tend to fire randomly at first in order to both announce their presence and to force everyone to drop for what cover they can find. This puts some distance around the shooter and decreases the odds of someone jumping him and taking his gun away from him. At the risk of repeating points I've made in past threads, guns are used primarily because they allow one to do harm at a distance while keeping potential harm to oneself at bay. You want your first action in a shooting to clear the crowd away from you. Then you start picking off individual targets.
Except the little detail where the first death occurred during the first volley in the food court. Also all reports mention that the second fatality and the survivor were attributed to stray bullets.

But you know, besides those pesky details you might have had something. Totally intended to clear out and then start aiming at those people.
gbaji wrote:
This is why I discount the idea that because he fired so many shots and only hit three people that he just wasn't trying,
You discount it because it's the more likely conclusion and vastly weakens your argument, such as it is. Smiley: laugh

Edited, Jan 25th 2013 11:03pm 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.
#564 Jan 25 2013 at 10:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji is looking past all those "media reports" and using his own logic to tell you what the shooter was planning!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#565 Jan 25 2013 at 10:19 PM Rating: Good
******
43,477 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji is looking past all those "media reports" and using his own logic to tell you what the shooter was planning!
Much like Whose Line Is It Anyway, I'm sure we're about to be told how the details are made up and the facts don't matter.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#566 Jan 26 2013 at 1:55 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Is that really what "going down to pull" means? I was wondering about that.

I very much doubt it. From the quote:
Quote:
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.

It reads as "As I was going down to pull [out my weapon], I saw someone..." In other words, as he was drawing his weapon, he noticed other people and decided not to try and fire.

A Google search for "Go down to pull" or "Going down to pull" returns no firearms related hits except that quote over and over. Adding "Go down to pull" +trigger returns nothing relevant at all. Maybe it's a term Gbaji's long rifle friends use all the time or something. This is a guy who romanticized "Don't retreat, reload!" into pressing F5 on your keyboard because that fit his political narrative better.

Edited, Jan 25th 2013 9:45pm by Jophiel


Yeah, I think gbaji is actually right on this. I think the guy did pull out his weapon, but "went down to pull" does mean that he was about to pull the trigger on the gun that he pulled.

However, I think lolgaxe has it right, as well. The shooter never really intended to kill anyone, so his suicide should not exactly be attributed to the random guy who pulled a gun.
#567 Jan 26 2013 at 3:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
643 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm suggesting that if an armed gunman killed a few faculty members and then went into a classroom with 20 kids and started shooting, and after killing 5 kids and showing no signs of stopping a member of the faculty burst into the room with a gun and shot him ending the shooting, the families of the other 15 kids who didn't die would consider him a hero for saving the lives of their children. And of course people would point to how much worse it would have been if that member of the faculty hadn't been armed and hadn't intervened. And that would not reduce the grief felt by the families of the 5 who died one bit. But it would still be a better outcome than otherwise.


The point being that in this case, there was no armed faculty member who burst in and saved any of the children. And that's a tragedy.

I've got a hypothetical too. A shooter kills 5 kids and then his gun jams. An armed faculty member intervenes, but the shooter gets the drop on him and takes his gun. He now kills 15 more kids. Now the situation is even worse and 20 kids are dead instead of 5 and the teacher would be villified.
#568 Jan 26 2013 at 9:08 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Except that my entire argument is about reducing the kill count. You're free to insist that something else is more important, but don't demand that I must prove a point that I'm not making.
..........
As I've said repeatedly, my argument isn't about trying to ensure that no one ever tries to commit a mass shooting. I don't think it's possible to do that. My objective is to minimize the number of fatalities when/if those kinds of shootings occur.


That's the point. Why are you here talking about stuff that no one cares about? This is about preventing shootings, not reducing the kill count. WTF you would want to do the latter and not the former is beyond me. These aren't "all or nothing" absolute solutions. You are intentionally addressing every possible variable that doesn't include gun control in a gun control discussion. That's exactly what the NRA was doing, scapegoating.

As John Stewart puts it....

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-8-2013/scapegoat-hunter

Gbaji wrote:
It wasn't a question. It was a statement. And no, numskull, the families of the 10 children who wouldn't have died if we managed to reduce the number who died from 20 to 10. You can't really be that dense.


I said the families of the remaining 10 dead children would not be happy about your statement. Their children are still dead. This belief that parents will overlook your **** security and be happy that you cut the dead from 20 to 10 when in fact you could have potentially stopped it all is ludicrous.

Gbaji wrote:
I'm suggesting that if an armed gunman killed a few faculty members and then went into a classroom with 20 kids and started shooting, and after killing 5 kids and showing no signs of stopping a member of the faculty burst into the room with a gun and shot him ending the shooting, the families of the other 15 kids who didn't die would consider him a hero for saving the lives of their children. And of course people would point to how much worse it would have been if that member of the faculty hadn't been armed and hadn't intervened. And that would not reduce the grief felt by the families of the 5 who died one bit. But it would still be a better outcome than otherwise.


The point being that in this case, there was no armed faculty member who burst in and saved any of the children. And that's a tragedy.


That's all nice and dandy, but now you're crossing your fingers and hoping that someone will "step up to the plate" as opposed to having an armed guard as a deterrent who is getting paid to do something. Your "Captain America" will be teaching, while the armed guard will be in the halls.

Your proposition ALLOWS for deaths to occur before being stopped as opposed to an armed guard questioning/scanning this random adult at the door. People will ask why are there random people going through your school? Your answer will be "We don't want to pay money for a guard". How will you pay to train these teachers? Are you going to pay these teachers more money? I would argue that your average teacher isn't going to work at a place where they have to carry a firearm to defend themselves. I would argue that they would feel better knowing that they have trained professionals. In both scenarios, you are spending money.

Teachers can only guard their classrooms. So, if a shooter attacks during class time, any reaction from a teacher is probably too late. This is opposed to a guard who is being proactive, actively looking for suspects.

Gbaji wrote:
Except that the term as used by the FBI and the Mother Jones study mentioned earlier means specifically 4 victim fatalities. So one can "prevent a mass shooting" without actually preventing the shooting. As long as you prevent 4 or more deaths from occurring.


People say "mass shootings" loosely, but the overall concern is the shooting itself. If you really want to get pedantic about it, that would only hold true if the shooter's intention were to only kill 3 or less people. If the shooter is stopped, then you have indeed stopped the shooting, which is preventing a mass shooting. Unless you can prove their intent.

Gbaji wrote:

Huh? Armed guards cost money. Allowing people already employed at the school to bring weapons with them costs nothing. You completely failed to respond to the actual point I made.


Isn't that the point of a security guard? Are you claiming that security costs too much? Are you incapable of producing a budget that can allow the safety of people? What possibly can be more valuable than one's life? Do you think teachers will work as a part time security guard and not want a raise? How will you pay for their training? Are you just going to hand a person a weapon? Are you going to force teachers to be armed? Furthermore, do you think high quality teachers want to be worrying about self-defense?

Gbaji wrote:
Yes. Want to know why? Because there are numerous accounts of them doing exactly this and being successful. Why would you assume they wouldn't?


The numerous accounts of people getting shot and/or shot at in the publicized shootings in the last few months. People's natural reaction is to take cover and/or run away. Even for the people who first reaction is to counter an attack (i.e. a security guard), they have to be there as you said. The difference is one is paid to be there and the other is based on luck. Just because I have the right to conceal a weapon doesn't mean I want to carry it or even own one.

Gbaji wrote:


I believe that a person is less likely to commit a shooting in front of an armed guard than elsewhere. Period.

Exactly. It wasn't written incorrectly. Now think about what you said and how it doesn't help your argument.

Gbaji wrote:
The issue of a random person that may or may not have a gun is irrelevant since by definition in order for their to be a shooting with any fatalities there must be other people around for the shooter to shoot. Thus, while the shooter can (and in most cases will) avoid starting his shooting spree right where an armed guard can easily react and stop him, he can't avoid the chance that one of the people in the area he starts shooting might be carrying a concealed weapon and thus be easily able to react and stop him.


That chance has always existed since the creation of weapons. It means absolutely nothing as it doesn't stop anything. There have always been a chance of someone capable of stopping a shooter, armed or not, being there. That possibility isn't relevant in the actual shooting as it never stopped anyone before. As I said, if the killer commits suicide, then they aren't afraid of getting shot, by an armed guard or not. However, to increase your chances of mass killing, the only other option is to shoot away from KNOWN guards.

Gbaji wrote:
Obviously, it's not guaranteed, but if we have a gun free zone, then there's zero chance of ending the shooting before the police or guard can arrive, whereas if we don't have a gun free zone, there is some chance greater than zero of ending the shooting before the police or guard can arrive. It's about odds and statistics. The more civilians with concealed weapons the greater the odds of someone in the crowd having a firearm and being able to end the shooting before the police/guard arrive. The fewer there are the lower the chance. Again, in a gun free zone, we've dropped those odds to zero.


Wait, weren't you the one crying about how ineffective it is to create laws for "law abiding citizens" and how law breakers will never follow a law? So, answer me this. If you were planning for a shooting and had to choose between a populated suburban area with low crime vs a populated hang-out in the hood with a high gang population, which one would choose and why?

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#569 Jan 26 2013 at 10:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,263 posts
The point being that in this case, there was no armed faculty member who burst in and saved any of the children. And that's a tragedy.

What's also a tragedy is that the school didn't have remote controlled 30/30 turrets in every room ceiling. Or land mines. Or that one the teachers wasn't a Kalahari Bushmen with a blowgun and poisoned darts. Also that none of the children syringes full of poison.

There is no case of an armed civilian bursting in anywhere and saving someone from a shooter. Why is that? Oh right, people who carry guns around in casual situations are terrified giant cowards, I forgot. The stench of their own urine would probably distract from them from getting a good shot off when confronted.
____________________________
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.

#570 Jan 26 2013 at 11:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
485 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji is looking past all those "media reports" and using his own logic to tell you what the shooter was planning!

Should we call this "gbagic" or "gbogic"? Or maybe just "bs" for short.
#571 Jan 26 2013 at 6:56 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,470 posts
Belkira wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Is that really what "going down to pull" means? I was wondering about that.

I very much doubt it. From the quote:
Quote:
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.

It reads as "As I was going down to pull [out my weapon], I saw someone..." In other words, as he was drawing his weapon, he noticed other people and decided not to try and fire.

A Google search for "Go down to pull" or "Going down to pull" returns no firearms related hits except that quote over and over. Adding "Go down to pull" +trigger returns nothing relevant at all. Maybe it's a term Gbaji's long rifle friends use all the time or something. This is a guy who romanticized "Don't retreat, reload!" into pressing F5 on your keyboard because that fit his political narrative better.


Yeah, I think gbaji is actually right on this. I think the guy did pull out his weapon, but "went down to pull" does mean that he was about to pull the trigger on the gun that he pulled.


Oh, he doesn't even deserve that one. There's no reason for the "down" modifier there except to signify "reaching down" for a gun.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#572 Jan 26 2013 at 7:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Exactly. Although this brings up another thing: aside from a single interview he gave with the local news, he hasn't given any other account or clarification and no one else has offered an account of what happened in regards to Meli and the shooter.

Looking for any other information on it (there isn't any I found), I did at least find this level-headed blog entry written by someone with a pro-armed civilian stance:
Quote:
I didn’t add this to my earlier post on armed citizens capturing, killing, or stopping mass shooters because it’s hard to tell just why Roberts acted as he acted. (I’m also hesitant to rely on self-reports by defenders; though I have no specific reason to doubt Meli’s story, I’m generally a skeptical guy, especially when it comes to uncorroborated accounts. Even people who aren’t making things up — and Meli’s story isn’t the sort of especially heroic tale that particularly smacks of possible fabrication — might easily misremember important details, especially when they were under serious stress at the time of the event.) Unlike in the Colorado Springs shooting, the shooter hadn’t been wounded, and didn’t necessarily have the sense that the gig was up. Roberts’ killing himself might thus have little to do with his seeing Meli (assuming Meli is correct in saying that Roberts did see him) and more to do with Roberts’ being ready for his exit at that point.
[...]
In any case, I think the Clackamas incident is too uncertain and ambiguous for me to include in my earlier post, but I thought I’d mention my extremely tentative thoughts (and reservations) about it, since so many people have brought it up. And if someone has more information, whether pointers to contemporaneous eyewitness reports or pointers to psychological literature, I’d love to see them.

Which is pretty much what I was saying but maybe it'll resonate more from someone Gbaji isn't hellbent on proving wrong just to defend his forum honor.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#573 Jan 26 2013 at 8:21 PM Rating: Good
****
7,806 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Is that really what "going down to pull" means? I was wondering about that.

I very much doubt it. From the quote:
Quote:
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.

It reads as "As I was going down to pull [out my weapon], I saw someone..." In other words, as he was drawing his weapon, he noticed other people and decided not to try and fire.

A Google search for "Go down to pull" or "Going down to pull" returns no firearms related hits except that quote over and over. Adding "Go down to pull" +trigger returns nothing relevant at all. Maybe it's a term Gbaji's long rifle friends use all the time or something. This is a guy who romanticized "Don't retreat, reload!" into pressing F5 on your keyboard because that fit his political narrative better.


Yeah, I think gbaji is actually right on this. I think the guy did pull out his weapon, but "went down to pull" does mean that he was about to pull the trigger on the gun that he pulled.


Oh, he doesn't even deserve that one. There's no reason for the "down" modifier there except to signify "reaching down" for a gun.

Actually, if you knew anything about firearms training, you never put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot. Now, me personally I would never phrase it the way he did, but not everbody speaks the same way.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#574 Jan 26 2013 at 9:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kastigir wrote:
Actually, if you knew anything about firearms training, you never put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot.

Sure but no one said otherwise. We just said the same thing you did...
Quote:
Now, me personally I would never phrase it the way he did
...but without the qualifier of "well, but maybe he just talks different."

Saying he meant "As I was going down to pull [out my gun]" takes a lot less imagination with the English language. This is all beside the fact that we're taking a single guy's account given in a few sentences as gospel for what happened.

Edited, Jan 26th 2013 9:14pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#575 Jan 28 2013 at 8:52 AM Rating: Good
******
43,477 posts
I read an account of it over the weekend that states he ducked behind a pillar after hearing three shots, which made me wonder what he was doing the other fifty plus shots.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#576 Jan 28 2013 at 10:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Going down to pull, naturally.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#577 Jan 28 2013 at 10:38 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Going down to pull, naturally.


Sounds more like a pre-urinal process, really.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#578 Jan 28 2013 at 12:43 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,263 posts
I read an account of it over the weekend that states he ducked behind a pillar after hearing three shots, which made me wonder what he was doing the other fifty plus shots.

Crying, probably.
____________________________
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.

#579 Jan 28 2013 at 1:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,638 posts
If anything this guy stopped the shooting anyway:

Quote:
Mall worker Rok Sang Kim encountered Roberts there. He later told a TV crew that he was coming back from recycling some boxes and hadn't heard the gunshots. His first thought when he spotted the shooter was how strange it was to see someone dressed in a costume weeks after Halloween. He thought the gun was a toy, until Roberts pointed it at him.

"No," Kim said. "Don't do that."

Roberts didn't. Instead, he turned away from Kim and hustled down a flight of stairs to the first floor. Exactly why he stopped shooting and retreated to a back hallway is unclear. That will likely remain a mystery as big as why he ever started.


Just say no.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#580 Jan 28 2013 at 1:14 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
If anything this guy stopped the shooting anyway:

Quote:
Mall worker Rok Sang Kim encountered Roberts there. He later told a TV crew that he was coming back from recycling some boxes and hadn't heard the gunshots. His first thought when he spotted the shooter was how strange it was to see someone dressed in a costume weeks after Halloween. He thought the gun was a toy, until Roberts pointed it at him.

"No," Kim said. "Don't do that."

Roberts didn't. Instead, he turned away from Kim and hustled down a flight of stairs to the first floor. Exactly why he stopped shooting and retreated to a back hallway is unclear. That will likely remain a mystery as big as why he ever started.


Just say no.


That incongruity is bugging me an irrational amount.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#581 Jan 28 2013 at 1:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,638 posts
From what I've read/heard/etc. it's conceivable he was really more interested causing terror than actually killing a large number of people.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#582 Jan 29 2013 at 4:09 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,567 posts
So, some of the smaller police departments in my area are telling their officers to ration ammo during training and are having difficulty updating their equipment. Private citizens have been purchasing arms in such bulk that manufacturers aren't able to keep up, and retailers have been prioritizing sales to private citizens since they can charge slightly more.
#583 Jan 29 2013 at 4:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,493 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Is that really what "going down to pull" means? I was wondering about that.

I very much doubt it. From the quote:
Quote:
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.

It reads as "As I was going down to pull [out my weapon], I saw someone..." In other words, as he was drawing his weapon, he noticed other people and decided not to try and fire.

Except that several accounts use language like this:

Quote:
Meli earlier told a KGW reporter that he heard three gunshots, and then positioned himself behind a pillar in the mall. Meli said he saw the gunman working on his rifle, pulling a charging handle and hitting the side of the weapon.

Meli said he then pulled out his Glock 22 pistol and aimed it at the suspect. But when he saw someone move behind Roberts, Meli decided against firing, concerned he might hit an innocent person.

Meli also told KGW that Roberts appeared to spot him and that afterward, Meli heard only one more shot, and suspects it was the one Roberts used to kill himself.


The quote about "going down to pull" can mean only one thing in this context. Since he says that he decided not to do it, but we know he did pull out his weapon and point it at the shooter, he can only be referring to the decision to fire.

Jophiel wrote:
A Google search for "Go down to pull" or "Going down to pull" returns no firearms related hits except that quote over and over. Adding "Go down to pull" +trigger returns nothing relevant at all. Maybe it's a term Gbaji's long rifle friends use all the time or something. This is a guy who romanticized "Don't retreat, reload!" into pressing F5 on your keyboard because that fit his political narrative better.


You "pull" a trigger. What the **** else can he have meant?

Kastigir wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Yeah, I think gbaji is actually right on this. I think the guy did pull out his weapon, but "went down to pull" does mean that he was about to pull the trigger on the gun that he pulled.


Oh, he doesn't even deserve that one. There's no reason for the "down" modifier there except to signify "reaching down" for a gun.

Actually, if you knew anything about firearms training, you never put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot. Now, me personally I would never phrase it the way he did, but not everbody speaks the same way.


Kastagir is correct. While the phrasing may be odd, it's not like you can't read several other reports on the encounter and conclude that the quote refers to his decision to fire his weapon. Nearly every single account says he pulled out his pistol and aimed it at the shooter, but choose not to fire because there were people behind the shooter and he was afraid he might hit one of them. Assuming all those accounts are incorrect because the quote can be interpreted differently seems like a bit of a stretch.

Jophiel wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Actually, if you knew anything about firearms training, you never put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot.

Sure but no one said otherwise. We just said the same thing you did...


No. You said that his statement "going down to pull" referred to whether he pulled out his weapon, not whether he put his finger on the trigger and pulled it (thus firing the weapon). You're correct that no one's arguing about standard gun use and safety. But that's also not the point of contention here. Meli clearly did point his weapon at the shooter. The shooter did see him. The shooter then decided against continuing into the store full of people he had been heading towards prior to reloading his rifle and instead went into a service hallway where he killed himself.

We can speculate that one action had nothing to do with the other, but that would be you just plain guessing.



Quote:
Saying he meant "As I was going down to pull [out my gun]" takes a lot less imagination with the English language. This is all beside the fact that we're taking a single guy's account given in a few sentences as gospel for what happened.


Sure. Except that it counters every other account of the event in question. You're correct that we could interpret it that way, but given that the reporters who interviewed him came away with the assumption that he had already pulled out his weapon and was pointing it at the shooter when he made that decision, maybe we should defer to their interpretation rather than your own? As I said earlier, there are numerous accounts which agree that he did pull out his weapon and did point it at the shooter. Your interpretation of his words would require that all of those accounts are incorrect. So in this case, it's much more reasonable to assume that he wasn't referring to the act of pulling out his weapon, but to pulling the trigger.


Edited, Jan 29th 2013 2:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#584 Jan 29 2013 at 5:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,493 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
If anything this guy stopped the shooting anyway:

Quote:
Mall worker Rok Sang Kim encountered Roberts there. He later told a TV crew that he was coming back from recycling some boxes and hadn't heard the gunshots. His first thought when he spotted the shooter was how strange it was to see someone dressed in a costume weeks after Halloween. He thought the gun was a toy, until Roberts pointed it at him.

"No," Kim said. "Don't do that."

Roberts didn't. Instead, he turned away from Kim and hustled down a flight of stairs to the first floor. Exactly why he stopped shooting and retreated to a back hallway is unclear. That will likely remain a mystery as big as why he ever started.


Just say no.


At that point the shooter had made the decision to end the shooting and kill himself. Many mass shooters enter this phase at some point (because many of them kill themselves rather than being captured, which was clearly the case here). We can't say for sure when he switched from "kill others" to "kill myself" mode, but it seems silly to assume it had nothing at all to do with an armed civilian pointing a gun at him given the breadth of data we have on shootings. I think that some people are ignoring the fairly clear common patterns that many of these kinds of shootings have. The shooters tend to continue shooting until they either run out of ammunition or they feel threatened by something that might interrupt their shooting. There often appears to be a desire to end the shooting on their terms rather than someone else's. The specifics of what they do once they've "ended" their spree vary, but there's always a clear trigger to it. Usually, it's the arrival of law enforcement, but the statistics also show that when an armed civilian intervenes it has the same effect. It triggers the end of the shooting. Mentally, he's done with the random shooting of victims and moves on to whatever end scenario he has planned.

While some might be mystified as to why he didn't shoot the guy in the hallway, I'm not at all. It makes complete sense and fits the pattern these kinds of shootings follow. What's interesting is just how consistent this pattern is. As I pointed out a couple times earlier in this thread, in cases of "random" shootings like this (where the shooter is just shooting people in an area rather than having a specific target and the shooting itself is the purpose, not a means to something else), the victim fatality rate after the shooter is confronted with armed opposition is zero as far as I can tell. In looking over all these cases of shootings, I haven't found one in which the shooter continues to shoot at random people in the area once he's aware of armed opposition to what he's doing. That's not to say that there might be a case or two where this happened, but it would seem to be the exception rather than the norm. The norm is that once someone with a gun arrives to oppose the shooter, the random killing of victims in the area stops.


So while we can speculate that maybe he made that decision for some other reason, and speculate on the impact of Meli and his gun, in the final analysis, this shooting followed that same pattern. Can we say for 100% sure that Meli's intervention prevented the shooter from killing anyone else? Not at all. Can we say it's probable that it did? Absolutely. More importantly, this case gives further weight to the data on shootings and the impact of armed civilians (and concealed carry). Because while we can't make any assumptions about the specifics of any one case, at some point the overwhelming data should allow us to make some broad conclusions about the effect of armed civilians and concealed carry on the statistical outcomes of shootings. And since we're not setting policy based on what would happen in this one case, but over any and all cases, those statistics should be given some weight. Ignoring them simply because they don't fit the narrative and assumptions you want or like is really silly.

Edited, Jan 29th 2013 3:27pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#585 Jan 29 2013 at 5:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You "pull" a trigger. What the **** else can he have meant?

You pull a gun. You pull a rope. You pull your **** Seriously, you think triggers have a monopoly on the word "pull"?

Your "accounts" are not direct quotes but someone's narrative based off his quotes. Anyway, as I also mentioned, it would be foolish to assume that (A) His word is gospel for what happened and (B) he was the catalyst for the shooter leaving and subsequently committing suicide.
Quote:
Can we say it's probable that it did? Absolutely.

Sure, just like an armed teacher "absolutely" would have stopped Newtown Smiley: laughSmiley: rolleyes

Edited, Jan 29th 2013 5:43pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#586 Jan 29 2013 at 6:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,493 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You "pull" a trigger. What the **** else can he have meant?

You pull a gun. You pull a rope. You pull your **** Seriously, you think triggers have a monopoly on the word "pull"?


In this context? He has his gun out and pointed at the shooter. He is then "going down to pull" but decides against it because he sees someone behind the shooter and he's worried he might hit that person if he fires. In this context, only a complete imbecile would conclude he meant anything other than putting his finger down on the trigger and pulling it. But you go ahead and continue arguing that point. You're only making yourself look more foolish.

Quote:
Your "accounts" are not direct quotes but someone's narrative based off his quotes.


They're not "my accounts", they are news reports on the incident. Written by a number of reporters. So "someone" in this case has more information than you do. I suppose we can just ignore all of them and instead continue with the pure speculation that matches your own narrative about guns and violence.

Also, they are reports based on more than just the interview with Meli. From the same **** article:

Quote:
Authorities confirmed Monday that Meli was seen during the incident, gun drawn, near the entrance to Macy's inside the mall.


From lolwiki:

Quote:
During that time, Nick Meli, a concealed carry permit holder, drew his Glock 22, and took aim at Roberts but did not fire since there was an innocent person behind Roberts.



And if you bothered to actually watch the video of the interview instead of just quoting from the article (which only has some of the information, you'd realize that the full statement of what he says is this:

Meli wrote:
In my mind I kept saying like "Drop it. Drop the gun", you know? And when I drew up I got tunnel vision and all I saw was my front sight on his head and I was, I was indexing and as I was going down, I was going to pull. I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move and I knew that if I fired and missed I could end up hitting them.


Clear enough now?

Quote:
Anyway, as I also mentioned, it would be foolish to assume that (A) His word is gospel for what happened and (B) he was the catalyst for the shooter leaving and subsequently committing suicide.


That's some serious backpedaling there. So now it's not that "going down to pull" was in reference to pulling the trigger, but that he might have just made up the whole thing anyway? Um... Whatever.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#587 Jan 29 2013 at 6:41 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
At that point the shooter had made the decision to end the shooting and kill himself.


You have no **** clue when he made that decision, or what might have prompted him to do so. Just like any other subject you poke your nose in.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#588 Jan 29 2013 at 6:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sure, I hadn't watched the video. No problem admitting that it's clear that he says he pulled his gun and aimed.
gbaji wrote:
That's some serious backpedaling there. So now it's not that "going down to pull" was in reference to pulling the trigger, but that he might have just made up the whole thing anyway? Um... Whatever.

"Now"? No, I said that from the very start. In that his account shouldn't be taken as gospel, not that he made it up out of whole cloth.
Me, on Dec 17th, wrote:
While it's theoretically possible that the shooter was so worried that he went downstairs to go shoot himself, I'm thinking there's a whole lot of conjecture there. I'm not doubting that Meli had a gun or drew it. I'm certainly not convinced, however, that the shooter saw it and reacted to it in any significant way to quickly end the ordeal.

But, yeah, totally backpedaling back to.. ummm... statements I had made a month ago?

Edited, Jan 29th 2013 6:53pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#589 Jan 29 2013 at 7:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,493 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
At that point the shooter had made the decision to end the shooting and kill himself.


You have no @#%^ing clue when he made that decision, or what might have prompted him to do so.


Huh? At the point in question, it's pretty clear he'd decided he was done shooting other people and was going to kill himself (since he did kill himself). He chose to go into a service hallway instead of into a crowded store. He then chose not to shoot a guy he happened to run into in said hallway. I mean, we can speculate that he ran into the service hallway looking for random shoppers to kill, but that seems pretty darn stupid given the crowded stores all around him. And we can further speculate that while looking for people to kill in the service hallway he ran into the one guy in that hallway, but then the magic of Christmas happened, and just like the Grinch, his heart grew and he decided to spare this particular Who. But that would be pretty darn stupid as well.


Or we can make the quite reasonable assumption that he saw someone pointing a gun at him and decided that shooting time was over. Given the overwhelming statistics showing that this is precisely what happens when a shooter is confronted by someone with a gun, the evidence is very strong that it was likely a key factor in that decision. Can we say for sure? No. But it's a far more reasonable explanation than "he just decided to stop shooting and wander off and kill himself at that moment".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#590 Jan 29 2013 at 7:55 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
we can speculate

Or we can not speculate. I know that hurts your argument since it hinges entirely upon speculation but, hey, just a thought.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#591 Jan 29 2013 at 8:22 PM Rating: Good
******
43,477 posts
This is another thread I love. In the other thread, he goes out of his way to tell us how he isn't manipulated by media sources and that he eliminates speculation and over-dramatization and only looks at the data to come to a conclusion. Here he is going out of his way to speculate based purely on over-dramatizations from media sources and is trying to pass off a violent douche as a potential mass murderer, completely ignoring all the actual data presented.

I mean, you can't get more hilarious than that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#592 Jan 29 2013 at 8:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's absolutely true that we can absolutely speculate that he absolutely only stopped absolutely because he absolutely saw Meli with his absolute gun... maybe.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#593 Jan 29 2013 at 8:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,477 posts
Oh, and just to toss this out: The FBI classifies any incident as a "mass shooting" as one where four or more, excluding self, are killed.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#594 Jan 29 2013 at 8:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
But we can absolutely speculate that every time a shooter is stopped we absolutely maybe stopped a mass shooting so it should count.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#595 Jan 29 2013 at 8:52 PM Rating: Good
******
43,477 posts
Absolutely.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#596 Jan 29 2013 at 8:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,746 posts
Should we also absolutely speculate that every time a shooter isn't stopped it's because someone close by had a concealed carry permit and was just too chicken **** to do anything with it?


I think I'm doing it wrong.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#597 Jan 30 2013 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,705 posts
Perhaps.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#598 Jan 30 2013 at 1:40 PM Rating: Good
*sigh*

It's just obvious.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#599 Feb 03 2013 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,263 posts
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20130203-chris-kyle-record-holding-sniper-as-navy-seal-killed-in-double-slaying-at-erath-county-gun-range.ece

Damn, if only there had been someone there with a gun to prevent this. Or someone with SOME KIND of training What's that? Oh, really? Most sniper kills every, and he was literally killed at a shooting range? Well, surely the shooter didn't last long...what's that? Drove away unharmed after killing two people? Well, you know, exception that proves the rule!
____________________________
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.

#600 Feb 03 2013 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, sure but did they have any recently graduated English-Lit majors with three hours of firearm training? Because that's what's going to save you when this sort of thing happens.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#601 Feb 03 2013 at 9:56 AM Rating: Excellent
If only the guns at the range had guns, they could have stopped it!
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 26 All times are in CDT
Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (25)