It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by Cosmic911
The problem with the article is that it really ends up with an opinion piece. Take Virgina where they dismiss one of the responders as a "former" LEO. Guess what a former LEO is? Yep, a private citizen.
A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school’s vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
A 2007 mall shooting in Salt Lake City, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.
Excellent piece on the subject by John Lott
Armed Citizen in Texas stops shooting spree and saves Cop
Armed citizen stops mall shooter
List of massacres stopped by armed citizens
Simple logic. Police cannot be everywhere all of the time. Thus it is inherent on good people to retain and utilize the means of self defense.
Originally posted by butcherguy
How often do COPS, the people supposedly entrusted with stopping these shooters, actually stop a mass shooting? They show up after it is finished in most cases.
Google search this: 'cop shoots unarmed man'.
Then google search this: 'cop shoots family pet'.
Yep, better take away our guns. Don't take them away from a group that are known to have a higher suicide rate than the general population though (cops).
Guns [are] 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. 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. 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.
As a matter of fact, as of 2008, armed citizens killed more violent bad guys than the police (1,527 vs. 606).
In separate incidents less than 12 hours apart, crime victims fought back by shooting robbers Sunday [12/9/2012] and early Monday, killing one suspect and injuring three. In both cases, the crime victims were not hurt.
A South Florida fruit vendor is speaking out with words of gratitude for a customer who stepped in after someone tried to mug him. Blood stains and crime scene tape remain on the sidewalk marking the spot of the near-fatal confrontation that occurred Tuesday afternoon [11/27/2012]
There are several documented cases where armed citizens have stopped mass attacks by gunmen. Let me list a few: The Pearl, Mississippi school shooting was stopped by the vice principal Joel Myrick with a Colt .45, The Appalachian School shooting was stopped by two students with handguns. Both of the above incidents were stopped by the armed citizens threatening the shooter without firing.
Originally posted by ecoparity
Given the fact that every mass shooting in the US in the past 20 years except 1 occurred in a "gun free zone" the entire assertion of the "article" is false.
This is a prime example of manipulation of data to fit a desired outcome, nothing more or less.
What is the point of, as you say, viewing the opposing side, when the facts and evidence will not change your mind due to your prevailing superstitions and taboos, which are often proven to be incorrect?
Originally posted by mademyself1984
reply to post by Cosmic911
Fine. Armed civilians still stop would be criminals more often than they would if no civilians were armed....what a stupid article.
Originally posted by Ismail
To all those people out there who believe that arming everyone is a solution to stopping shootouts : you are morons.
A shootout is an extremely confusing event during which eveyone involved is pumped full of adrenaline. That's why it's so hard to put things together after shootings based on witness testimony (Sandy Hook anyone ?).
Let's run a little scenario here. You are armed, at the mall, and you hear shooting. You pull your gun and arrive on scene. One person has reacted faster than you, and has engaged the shooter. How the hell do you know who is who ? Why should the armed citizen who is firing at the shooter not open fire on you when he sees another person with a gun has just come round the corner ? Both citizens involved have an equal chance of shooting the wrong person, and I'm not even going to count collateral due to all these bullets flying eveywhere.
Now add more people to that scenario. You'll multiply the death toll by one hundred.
All the while, the shooter himself just doesn't care, because he's there to die anyway. Most of these shooters commit suicide, or attempt it. You think that citizens with guns are going to deter these kind of people ? They allready have a death wish. They allready want to die. You arm everyone, and I guarantee that your shooter will probably die fast, but the gunfight won't die with him.
Originally posted by Ismail
To all those people out there who believe that arming everyone is a solution to stopping shootouts : you are morons.
A shootout is an extremely confusing event during which eveyone involved is pumped full of adrenaline. That's why it's so hard to put things together after shootings based on witness testimony (Sandy Hook anyone ?).
Let's run a little scenario here. You are armed, at the mall, and you hear shooting. You pull your gun and arrive on scene. One person has reacted faster than you, and has engaged the shooter. How the hell do you know who is who ? Why should the armed citizen who is firing at the shooter not open fire on you when he sees another person with a gun has just come round the corner ? Both citizens involved have an equal chance of shooting the wrong person, and I'm not even going to count collateral due to all these bullets flying eveywhere.
Now add more people to that scenario. You'll multiply the death toll by one hundred.
All the while, the shooter himself just doesn't care, because he's there to die anyway. Most of these shooters commit suicide, or attempt it. You think that citizens with guns are going to deter these kind of people ? They allready have a death wish. They allready want to die. You arm everyone, and I guarantee that your shooter will probably die fast, but the gunfight won't die with him.
Originally posted by Ismail
To all those people out there who believe that arming everyone is a solution to stopping shootouts : you are morons.
A shootout is an extremely confusing event during which eveyone involved is pumped full of adrenaline. That's why it's so hard to put things together after shootings based on witness testimony (Sandy Hook anyone ?).
Let's run a little scenario here. You are armed, at the mall, and you hear shooting. You pull your gun and arrive on scene. One person has reacted faster than you, and has engaged the shooter. How the hell do you know who is who ? Why should the armed citizen who is firing at the shooter not open fire on you when he sees another person with a gun has just come round the corner ? Both citizens involved have an equal chance of shooting the wrong person, and I'm not even going to count collateral due to all these bullets flying eveywhere.
Now add more people to that scenario. You'll multiply the death toll by one hundred.
All the while, the shooter himself just doesn't care, because he's there to die anyway. Most of these shooters commit suicide, or attempt it. You think that citizens with guns are going to deter these kind of people ? They allready have a death wish. They allready want to die. You arm everyone, and I guarantee that your shooter will probably die fast, but the gunfight won't die with him.