How to Stop a Massacre...

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Good post, however you really shouldnt plagerize and pass things off as your own work..
This article, word for word what you wrote in the original OP, is taken from natural news. I think they would appreciate you sourcing them! (the video is not credited to them, but they wrote the words, you didn't, just sayin....)

www.naturalnews.com...

Otherwise, good on this old dude! Its the reason why the 2nd amendment is in place! So people can protect themselves from others trying to do harm to them and to fight against a tyrranical government.
edit on 7/26/2012 by Nspekta because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 





For every example like this, there are examples of the hero accidentally killing or wounding someone other than the criminal.


Your entire post was complete nonsensical anti-gun talking points but the line above was the clincher. It my friend it complete and utter BS! I challenge you to back that statement with some actual proof. Some white hat accidently killing or wounding someone while defending himself or others is so rare you would be hard pressed to find an example much less an actual statistic anywhere near close to your claim that it happens as often as people saving lives with guns...




* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense

*According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6

And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."7

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."
B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime... Read more: gunowners.org...

edit on 27-7-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 
It is in quotes I just forgot to link it... thanks



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Awesome video. I think there is logic to this, especially if gun control laws are written to allow citizens to carry firearms. I don't even have a problem with things like background checks, registration, required safety classes and stuff. But I don't think that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is the answer. I have friend on ATS who, although I think she is a democrat, has already had two experiences in her life where this came into play.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Grampa is a hero, but as many have said. It could've gone very, very wrong. If they turned and started shooting back...? Many experienced folks will tell you: Don't try to be a hero. I can show you a couple of videos that didn't turn out so good for the heroes. One video I saw recently 3 guys took on a robber with a gun... Two of the would be heroes died on the scene with shots to the head. The robber got away...

While I have nothing against guns and I support the idea that everyone has the right to own a gun, I think arming man, woman, child, dog and cat to the teeth to "stop a massacre" is not the best idea in the world. But that's just me.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   
What many people don t know about this video:
The robber had an old rusty, unloaded gun. The other guy with the bat smashed a screen, some pieces of it flew into his eyes, so he was not watching grandpa and was surprised.

This situation turned out well, and kudos for the older gentleman.

Then again, this could have turned out very bad. If the robbers gun would have been loaded, when he starts to shoot back a lot of people could have been injured. Also you see the older lady who is shocked, she nearly walks into the line of fire.

Here we have a situation where it was good to have an armed citizen. But there are so many situation where guns even from trained people do a lot of damage.

For instance the cop who shot his son, because he believed it is an intruder, and the other cop who was shot by his 3 year old son, because he had his loaded gun unattended in his car (!).

Looking at the stats, the US with one of the most liberal gun laws also has the most people killed by guns - by far.

All in all good manners and a decent society with respect to each other would prevent deadly incidents.
And the less guns the less people killed with guns. If somebody gets mad and attacks other people without weapons there are maybe some broken noses/ blue eyes but no deaths.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
For those interested how to stop a person with a guncheck this video out:



In general i would not advise anyone to play the hero. But there might be situations where techniques like this can save you, for example when the gun is jammed or the the guy is reloading.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Now try to apply all of that to an incident in a dark movie theater, with a perpetrator throwing gas canisters, armed with assault rifles, wearing protective clothing...

This is ridiculous. The lengths people will go to to try to "prove" that others having guns would have prevented this psychopath from acting as he did, it's insane.

You could have had several people in the theater armed with handguns and this would still have happened for the following reasons -

1. The theater was dark and not everyone knew what was happening.
2. The element of surprise led many to think it was part of a show
3. A handgun - or three - is no match against a high powered assault rifle
4. No gun will save you from being overcome by gases and fumes from canisters
5. A suicidal person will not have fear for their life like these robbers
6. Motive here was money, not killing, that is a major difference. If the motive in this case was killing, all of those people in the room would have been dead by the time that man started firing back.

I am pro-gun ownership for Americans. But I am not an idiot and I don't believe in mindless cheer leading. Your post proves nothing, your methods are meaningless, the suggestion that someone having a gun to shoot back would have stopped this is so far beyond sensible you're just making the pro-gun people look like retards.

People need to accept that a psychopath who wants to kill people will do so. Having access to high-powered weapons DOES assist them to kill more people, just as having access to explosives would, or a bio weapon, or chemicals... He would not have been able to kill so many people if he only had a handgun. This is fact, an no number of YouTube videos by people who think the gun is some kind of magical solution to everything will persuade people to ignore the FACTS.

As I said, I am pro-gun for Americans. But, I am not pro-idiot.

There should be greater limitations on the kinds of weapons American citizens can buy. Why does anyone NEED a weapon capable of killing hundreds of people within minutes? Why?

Give me one practical reason why the weapons he had were sensible for any kind of everyday use. Are they useful for hunting? No. Unless you intend to shoot dead a herd of livestock within seconds.
Are they useful for self defense? No, because you cannot just carry that kind of weapon around with you, and you are not likely to be attacked by a gang of 100 criminals all at once.

I don't care how people want to try to spin it, some weapons should NOT be legal, they have no use in society, no place anywhere other than a battle field. The gun does not save you, it is not a magic shield protecting you from crazy people.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


the right to bare
is so you can rise up to thwart

the right to bare
does not mean
tools for hunting & sport

if you think some 1
with a handgun couldn't
get a body count think again

dood's A.S. supposedly jammed
so he kept on firing using a 2nd weapon
a Handgun...

situational awareness
always




it is not a magic shield protecting you from crazy people.


nope your right
Not a Shield

the gun is a tool
it spits hot lead
that puts down the crazy people
edit on 7/27/2012 by spoonbender because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 



You could have had several people in the theater armed with handguns and this would still have happened for the following reasons -



It still would have happened, but it would have gone down way differently.

Best case scenario: Someone takes a shot and realizes he is armored, and then flips the little red dot and puts one right in the face mask, and its all over.

Worst case scenario: People shoot wildly and end up hitting innocent bystanders, but also confusing the assailant, so about the same number of injuries and deaths occur, but with the added legal problems for some do-gooders, and a much more powerful anti-gun argument. (Really glad that didn't happen.)

Most probable scenario: A couple of people with guns, take a couple of safe, well-placed, but ineffective shots, they don't kill the assailant, but they do distract him because it hurts, even with the armor, it scares or angers him, and he goes looking for the shooter while others escape. Maybe they don't stop the massacre, but maybe less people get shot in the long run, because they have changed the situation and put the assailant on the defensive, made him have to watch his back, etc.

Armed people in the theatre would have changed the dynamic dramatically, and I'd put odds 10 to 1 that they would have changed it for the better, not worse. Might not have stopped it, but at least lowered the number of victims.
edit on 27-7-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by svetlana84



Looking at the stats, the US with one of the most liberal gun laws also has the most people killed by guns - by far.




And if we had no cars, there would be less auto-related deaths. You're point is invalid. Yes it's true that there would be less gun related deaths, but the bad thing about such statements is that statistics about such things are never explained, they never say how many of these deaths were because of self defense. It is bad when someone is killed, however, if their death prevents the death of several, did we really lose? I own guns, and I know how to use them. I was raised with guns, and being a veteran, i also have a bit more experience in that field than most people, and I believe that if more people were armed, there would be less crime. The reason Violent crimes even take place is because the offender knows that the chance of a civilian pulling a gun on him is pretty low.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I'm going to be blunt here. The best way to REDUCE this kind of thing is to reduce the number of people who can potentially do it. It's basic enough. When a nation runs around proudly acquiring lethal weapons with little to no prerequisites, no necessary or provided training in the handling or reasoning while possessing such a weapon....sh!t's going to go bad!

When the majority of adults living in a population can't adequately use grammar and spelling taught to them at single digit age, it's a rational assumption they are not capable of being trusted with such power as is possessed by a gun. A black belt in unarmed martial arts takes years of discipline to achieve, and is far from lethal unless under certain circumstances. Even so, any slack-jawed dropkick incapable of spelling his own name can purchase a weapon capable of ending dozens of lives in a matter of seconds.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Yep... to stop massacres, all we need is more weapons! It's so obvious! lol



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by nonono
Yep... to stop massacres, all we need is more weapons! It's so obvious! lol


Exactly.

The proof is in the Hitler's, Pol Pot's, Myanmar's, and even right here in an unarmed and helpless theatre of 300+ people, where a single predator had his way with them and nobody could fight back.

Massacres are a result of an imbalance of force. Once everyone is equally armed, the force equation is balanced, the massacres are much, much more difficult to orchestrate.
edit on 27-7-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I can see why Americans want to be armed and thats because you have a lot of guns in your population. Yet it is sort of paradoxical. For example in a country where there is so few guns there is no need to own or carry a gun. If you did carry for protection this would mean anyone could and you then end up with a society with lots of guns in it. Thus feeling the need to be able to protect yourself from gun crime.

Also if you take a look at the history of US shootings even in just schools alone it is a frequent occurrence in comparison to other countries, you have an alarmingly high amount of deaths from guns. Yet the majority of these people are owning these guns legally and killing people that without a gun they could not.Do you think Holmes could take out 12 people with a knife?.

In the UK we have a huge problem with knife crime, but random stabbings rarely happen, it is usually gang related (not that this makes this any better). A mass stabbing would not be easily achieved and considering you have to be near to the knife to be injured a lot more people can escape, or attack/ disarm the person with a knife.

A gun makes it too easy for someone to take a life and a lot of lives, extremely quickly.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by eyesdown
 



I can see why Americans want to be armed and thats because you have a lot of guns in your population. Yet it is sort of paradoxical. For example in a country where there is so few guns there is no need to own or carry a gun.


This has been disproven repeatedly.
My previous post with sources.

The "violent crime rate" in Canada is about 1400 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. In the US, it is less than 1/3rd of that at about 400 violent crimes per 100,000 residents.

More guns does not equal more overall crime. Yes, of course it does create more crimes that involve guns, but the overall rate of crime is dramatically lower, because people have guns to defend themselves.

Also, the gun statistics in the US include suicides which account for more than half of all gun fatalities, while in other countries suicide is not even a crime.

edit on 27-7-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


As a matter of fact, the killer could have been stopped by any normal unarmed man... he wasn't, because most people are cowards. A gun wouldn't have changed that. I also lol'd at your mention of Hitler... you guys act like a gun will stop dictators. Protip: it won't. See: the USA. All your guns are doing nothing to keep the tyrants in check. So enjoy massacre after massacre after massacre... and please, don't forget that guns don't kill people, guns do. I'll still be laughing at you from the safety of my gun-free house.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by nonono
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


As a matter of fact, the killer could have been stopped by any normal unarmed man... he wasn't, because most people are cowards. A gun wouldn't have changed that. I also lol'd at your mention of Hitler... you guys act like a gun will stop dictators. Protip: it won't. See: the USA. All your guns are doing nothing to keep the tyrants in check. So enjoy massacre after massacre after massacre... and please, don't forget that guns don't kill people, guns do. I'll still be laughing at you from the safety of my gun-free house.


I agree that an unarmed person could still have been very effective against the shooter in Colorado, and people are cowards.

BUT, HItler disarmed his population before carrying out his reign of terror. The US has occasional murderous rampages, but so do Norway, Finland, Germany, the UK, and more. What we don't have is mass genocide.

NOW, I do agree that we have been lax in limiting our government as was intended. BUT, that is because we believe in Democracy, and at the current time a large enough section of the population actually agrees with the policies of this overbearing government to keep electing people who support it. Hopefully, one day soon Democracy works to turn that around, or if it doesn't, at least it may become clear that the government is not representing the people and an overwhelming percentage will support replacing the government one way or another.

Right now that ratio is too close to 50/50, and violence would be uncalled for, and unpopular. That may not always be the case, so we keep our guns in case that day arises.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by eyesdown
 


Hey, who needs common sense when you have guns?





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join