Yet another good guy with a gun saves the day..

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: notsure1

You missed...DETROIT!

I missed DC too LOL.. And the big easy.. and Vegas..

originally posted by: BigDave-AR

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: chr0naut

~Yawn~

You are comparing apples to candy bars.

If you want to compare apples to apples, if you as an adult spend your entire life in a US Federal prison, your chances of being shot are about 0%.

Care to change where you live again to make the numbers better?

You can still get shot in prison, it's just more likely that it would be with rubber bullets.

But, apparently if you reside inside a nuclear reactor, anywhere in the world, no-one, not even Americans, will shoot at you.

Not really sure how that relates to anything, but if you can throw around irrelevant numbers, why not?

What I was talking about was that the gun laws in the US cannot do what the gun lobby says they do.

And the anti-gun lobby, are their goals practical and achievable? Do you honestly believe that gun control would make a significant difference?

It has everywhere else in the world. Why couldn't it work even in the most backward of countries?

But let's take your argument to the logical conclusion and ban all guns.

Then only criminals would have them.

Should really stop mass shootings, right?

As opposed to a good guy stopping a bad guy because he had a gun.

Of course a ban on guns for the general public doesn't mean you disarm the police.

So the net result of a ban on guns is that there would be fewer criminals with access to guns and exactly the same number of armed police as there is now.

The whole "then only criminals would have guns" argument is stupid.

a reply to: JameSimon

Sounds like ethnocentrism to me.

a reply to: notsure1

What part of per capita don't you understand? We also have violent crime, drug trafficking, etc.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: chr0naut

Statistics are fun.

Portugal, per capita, has 23% more opiate use than the United States.

You also have, per capita, 79% more police officers than the United States.

So you use a lot more drugs and have a lot more policemen.

Standard of living index?

The bottom 10% in the US have better lives than the top 10% in Portugal .

I've visited there, not thinking of moving there anytime soon.

So go shoot some heroin and hide from the cops... you'll be OK.

Why lie?

www.washingtonpost.com...

recoverybrands.com...

Also, the bottom 10% in the USA don't have better lives than the top 10% in Portugal. If Portugal is generally a poorer country? Yes, it is, our GDP is much lower, but that is.not part of the conversation. Actually, you just deflected what I said.

a reply to: JBurns

How about this as a possible scenario:

Someone discharges a gun in a public place.

Someone else shoots them, preventing a possible massacre.

Then a third person hearing the gunshots and only seeing the second shooter, shoots the second shooter (remember during the Kennedy assassination that no-one was really sure where the gunshots were coming from. It isn't an unreasonable thing to happen).

And so on...

The gun deaths in the situation could have been worse if everyone was armed and prepared to shoot. The gun laws just aren't protective, because we are human and can make mistakes.

a reply to: JimNasium

What are you talking about? Mexico isn't south of Florida.

And who said anything about going farther south?

I don't get the point of your comment at all...if it's worth elaborating on, please do.

a reply to: chr0naut

How about this as a possible scenario: Someone discharges a gun in a public place.

Someone else shoots them, preventing a possible massacre.

Then a third person hearing the gunshots and only seeing the second shooter, shoots the second shooter (remember during the Kennedy assassination that no-one was really sure where the gunshots were coming from. It isn't an unreasonable thing to happen).

While I applaud the actions of the "good guy" who apparently stopped this potential massacre, I have to admit that I have had some concerns about a scenario like you propose.

Even if multiple legal firearm carriers don't wind up shooting one another, there is the very real possibility that law enforcement may shoot the "good guy" as soon as they arrive on the scene because they haven't been apprised of the whole situation.

I hope this never happens. However we have seen many instances of police shooting first and asking questions later.

The whole "then only criminals would have guns" argument is stupid.

Unfortunately it's a valid argument in the United States.

We have a gun culture in the US that now sees more firearms than residents. Given our view of the right to possess such weapons, it is highly unlikely we will ever enact legislation to significantly reduce that inventory.

So, given this eternal glut of guns, it will always be a reasonably easy task for a criminal to acquire a firearm if he has sufficient motivation. While a normally law-abiding citizen is unlikely to go that route, and will pursue a legal means of acquiring such a weapon.

While I always appreciate the views of our international cousins with respect to domestic US issues, I find it nearly impossible to convey to them how deeply rooted is our gun culture. In fact, I stand in amazement at some nations who have been successful at disarming their populace.

I do not exaggerate when I say that attempting to do this in the US would lead to a major uprising that would cost the lives of countless otherwise law-abiding citizens.

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

Even if multiple legal firearm carriers don't wind up shooting one another,

While that's a possibility, many, if not most, have at least enough training not to. Hopefully.

there is the very real possibility that law enforcement may shoot the "good guy" as soon as they arrive on the scene because they haven't been apprised of the whole situation.

Now this is a far more likely scenario, one that we've seen played out for real.

This is why, if you get involved in a situation like this, when the cops show up, your weapon is back in its holster, or on the ground, or in some way made to be as nonthreatening, as possible. Common sense. You should expect to be treated with great suspicion, too, upon their arrival.

Calm. ...and for the sake of your continued living in this world, obey their orders!!!!!!!! Now, is not the time to go all "it's my rights"...that'll get you a good chance of getting shot.

a reply to: seagull

Ever see the jackets/hats with ID panels on them? They are used by LE and emergency responders a lot, I had an idea of making a label that says something like "good guy" or "armed citizen" or "CHL" to aid in recognition.

Of course the best idea would be putting your weapon back in the holster after any potential defensive shooting, keep your hands visible and away from the body etc. To be honest, the best thing (not to mention the *right* thing) to do is to render medical aid if possible/safe to do. Otherwise, if the scene is not safe you should leave and call police from a safe location

a reply to: DexterRiley

positive target ID is not optional, it is required. If someone is holding a firearm, even during an active incident, immediately shooting them is the wrong thing to do. One clue that they may not be the threat (aka the bad guy) is to observe whether or not they are shooting at multiple individuals, or are they just standing there, or are they trying to render medical aid? Situational context is key, and ensuring you don't overreact/react too quickly is also important. You have to know the situation before deciding to jump in and help, that is why taking a step back for a second can make a difference

911 dispatchers should be trained better, to ensure accurate descriptions are given to prevent good guys from being wrongfully shot by responding LE

Remember, just because someone has a gun doesn't mean they are a threat. The triad of ability, opportunity and intent *must* be met to support a deadly force response

Ah, seagull has put it perfectly

Calm. ...and for the sake of your continued living in this world, obey their orders!!!!!!!! Now, is not the time to go all "it's my rights"...that'll get you a good chance of getting shot.

a reply to: seagull

I agree. If someone is not brandishing the weapon when the LEO arrive, they are much less likely to be shot. And, I think, legal concealed carriers are likely to be more compliant with officer demands.

However, there is that small window of time when the "good guy" may still have his firearm is play when the police arrive. I believe that's when he or she is most likely to get shot.

Maybe what JBurns proposes has some merit. Especially if there is more widespread adoption of concealed carriers wearing identifying insignia. Maybe if a "bad guy" sees a lot of those insignia floating around in a crowd, he may think twice about his actions.

-dex

a reply to: JBurns

That's definitely sage advice. It's clear that you know what you're talking about.

Hopefully the local law enforcement in a situation like this has been as well trained. And they have enough self-control to follow their training.

-dex

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: chr0naut

How about this as a possible scenario: Someone discharges a gun in a public place.

Someone else shoots them, preventing a possible massacre.

Then a third person hearing the gunshots and only seeing the second shooter, shoots the second shooter (remember during the Kennedy assassination that no-one was really sure where the gunshots were coming from. It isn't an unreasonable thing to happen).

While I applaud the actions of the "good guy" who apparently stopped this potential massacre, I have to admit that I have had some concerns about a scenario like you propose.

Even if multiple legal firearm carriers don't wind up shooting one another, there is the very real possibility that law enforcement may shoot the "good guy" as soon as they arrive on the scene because they haven't been apprised of the whole situation.

I hope this never happens. However we have seen many instances of police shooting first and asking questions later.

The whole "then only criminals would have guns" argument is stupid.

Unfortunately it's a valid argument in the United States.

We have a gun culture in the US that now sees more firearms than residents. Given our view of the right to possess such weapons, it is highly unlikely we will ever enact legislation to significantly reduce that inventory.

So, given this eternal glut of guns, it will always be a reasonably easy task for a criminal to acquire a firearm if he has sufficient motivation. While a normally law-abiding citizen is unlikely to go that route, and will pursue a legal means of acquiring such a weapon.

While I always appreciate the views of our international cousins with respect to domestic US issues, I find it nearly impossible to convey to them how deeply rooted is our gun culture. In fact, I stand in amazement at some nations who have been successful at disarming their populace.

I do not exaggerate when I say that attempting to do this in the US would lead to a major uprising that would cost the lives of countless otherwise law-abiding citizens.

-dex

OK, so you think that an attempt to disarm the general population in the US would cost the lives of many.

Here's an interesting link: Gun Control in Australia, Updated - FactCheck.org.

But the lives of many are already being lost, at increasing rates over 10,000 per year, and that doesn't include all the non-fatal gun injuries. That's like the full capacity of a mid sized indoor stadium wiped out, every year.

More US citizens have died by shootings inside the US, than all the deaths of US soldiers in all wars. It's like a massive war of attrition invasion was going on, except that it is US citizens killing themselves and each other.

Perhaps if the general public realized the actual and relentless toll of gun deaths, the will of the people (as opposed to gun lobbyists) would drive government policy (hint, in current news there is outcry against the mayor of Chicago because of the rise in shootings there).

At some stage, the people are going to say "enough is enough". It will be the will of the people.

... and if it leads to civil war, then no other country in the world would stand by a US that is destroying itself.

originally posted by: JameSimon
Portugal, my home country:

Extremely difficult to get guns. Some hardcore criminals have them. Public doesn't. No recorded school shootings, no massacres, violent homicides are a fraction of the ones in the USA (per capita). You only need good guys with guns because you're gun nutters.

I'm glad you are happy in Portugal. I won't make any comments about what goes on there. How about you not making any more about the US?

a reply to: chr0naut

OK, so you think that an attempt to disarm the general population in the US would cost the lives of many.

Here's an interesting link: Gun Control in Australia, Updated - FactCheck.org.

But the lives of many are already being lost, at increasing rates over 10,000 per year, and that doesn't include all the non-fatal gun injuries. That's like the full capacity of a mid sized indoor stadium wiped out, every year.

More US citizens have died by shootings inside the US, than all the deaths of US soldiers in all wars. It's like a massive war of attrition invasion was going on, except that it is US citizens killing themselves and each other.

I'll readily acknowledge that we have a problem. There's no doubt about that. But, as I see it, there's just not the political will to do much about it right now.

Perhaps if the general public realized the actual and relentless toll of gun deaths, the will of the people (as opposed to gun lobbyists) would drive government policy (hint, in current news there is outcry against the mayor of Chicago because of the rise in shootings there).

While I respect your opinion, I'm not sure that the gun lobby is the only driving force in our lack of gun control legislation. There is a substantial portion of our citizenry that takes their 2nd Amendment rights very seriously. And even without organizations like the NRA they are politically active and wield significant political power.

At some stage, the people are going to say "enough is enough". It will be the will of the people.

I won't argue that point either. If, and when, that happens, then there will be enough political impetus to actually take some action to attempt to control firearms. However, given the makeup of our Supreme Court, it's likely that some parts of any gun control legislation will be deemed unconstitutional. So, even if our view of gun control were to change tomorrow, it will take at least another generation before anything substantial can be done about it.

... and if it leads to civil war, then no other country in the world would stand by a US that is destroying itself.

I don't know that it would lead to a full out civil war. But there would be serious unrest. And a great many otherwise law abiding citizens would die protecting what they believe to be a God-given right.

While I acknowledge your point about the stadium full of people who die by guns each year right now, I believe that the social disturbances caused by any substantive gun control legislation (i.e., the so-called "gun grab") would have a much greater societal impact.

As far as any country standing by the US, I'm wondering how many will still be standing with us when the current administration finishes destroying every relationship we've established since the end of WWII.


-dex

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: JameSimon
Portugal, my home country:

Extremely difficult to get guns. Some hardcore criminals have them. Public doesn't. No recorded school shootings, no massacres, violent homicides are a fraction of the ones in the USA (per capita). You only need good guys with guns because you're gun nutters.

I'm glad you are happy in Portugal. I won't make any comments about what goes on there. How about you not making any more about the US?

Well, that's your prerogative, if you choose not to comment on the politics of Portugal, in an appropriately relevant thread... But his fully within his rights as a citizen of our planet to comment about the politics of whatever country he chooses.

Maybe you should either reply with an actual intelligent rebuttal... or just build a bridge and get over it.

a reply to: JameSimon

Bam!!! Thats the truth.