hustler

iTrader: (6)

I left out the far-right sources, but there are crazy stories about flash-mobs running through PA cities and invading homes, then getting fragged by guys with assault rifles. Some have 90-minute police response times. I suppose this is the "practical application" of the semi-auto rifle the left says we don't need.

buffon01

iTrader: (9)

Lol @ gun owners, at least those that own them legally, running around shooting places for silly reasons. Those I know, that own guns legally, have high respect for others and will only turn to use a firearm in light of a life-threatening situation. Only those that acquire fire arms with the intend to commit crime will have such low regard for other's well being.

I couldn't embed, so here it is:

Penn & Teller: Gun Control is Bullshyt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBLwSR2Mxyw

Stein

iTrader: (46)

Good thing. Inept car owner is still more likely to kill someone else than inept gun owner.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

I think every driving test should be similar to Finland's driver test. If you do not know what I am talking about google it. There is a reason the motorsports saying goes "If you want to win, hire a Fin."

psreynol

agree with that.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Eff yes, but it will never happen here. If a politician even tries to broach the subject, he won't be re-elected.

budget racer

iTrader: (1)

It may have been addressed already.......but.....

What say you guys about the best solution to random violant acts with legally acquired weapons (Aurora, CO, etc.)?

buffon01

iTrader: (9)

Imagine that, the streets will be empty. People freak about driving a manual car. What are these numbers and where is "D"?

I think that random acts deal with the individual's ability to manage anger and the manner in which that person retaliates. The amount of work and money to create a detailed psychological profile for every gun owner in order to determine the potential risk of snapping and causing harm would be high and not entirely eliminate these acts. All in all that's is a very hard question because for those fixed on causing harm to others will find a manner in which to cause harm.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

You need to be more specific.

Are you asking how we prevent such acts through commerce?
Are you asking about how to tactically handle an active shooter?
Are you asking about how a CCW handgun carrier would fare against an assault weapon wielder?

What exactly is your question?

Since I think you're asking the first version, it's pretty obvious that there is nothing you can do to prevent most mass-shootings that were done with legally obtained weapons and still maintain the liberties of the law abiding from the view of restricting sales of the weaponry itself.

If he'd run into the theater and thrown a couple 5-gallon buckets of gasoline on the first row and lit them off, causing everybody in the theater to have to run through the inferno and over the bodies of their burning fellow viewers, WOULD WE:

A: Restrict gasoline sales to only people who could prove they owned vehicles.
B: Ration gasoline to only XX gallons per week based on what kind of car you have.
C: Require a national licensing program so that only background checked legal vehicle owning people could buy gas.
D: Force people to annually report every mile they drove and demonstrate proper cause to continue to own their gasoline ration.
E... you get the idea.

By no measure of reason can you use the circumstances surrounding a mass shooting to justify changes in firearms law.

If the guy had made a dozen pipe-bombs and blown the place up, would people be down at Home Depot picketing that they are evil pipe-selling death dealers that have blood on their hands.

Just read this. People are actually calling the online store (that has 85% sales to police officers) and berating, insulting, threatening them for their "role" in the shooting:
A Statement Regarding The Colorado Shooting | Tactical Gear News

petrolmed

iTrader: (8)

Great video, was about to post that.

For those who don't wanna click that link here is an embed,



I suggest watching the criminal's input at 20:12. It's pretty creepy and all too true.

NastyNate

iTrader: (1)

You said it ritght there. Random acts are just that, random. But would things turned out the same if even 1 or 5 or more of those people had been armed?

buffon01

iTrader: (9)

Pen2_the_penguin

iTrader: (4)

I wouldnt want to own an RPG, they are very inaccurate and hard to predict.

As an opinion, I dont believe the US military would have much power if they came into a civil conflict with US citizens, since I would like to believe if given such an order without an extreme and legitimate cause for such blasphemy half if not most would use their own military training and resources to arm and defend the civil rebellion.

As for ownership of explosive ordinance with guided warheads and/or anti-aircraft capability, you can already own older WW2 and vietnam war era weaponry, that could still pack enough heat to destroy the most advanced abrams tanks or multi-role fighter jets. To own more modern weapons I agree with sam about being trained, legal, and know how to successfully secure an armory from unwanted and unlawful persons, and because if that I wouldnt want to own anything that would put me in that situation.

I dont think our fore-fathers could have even imagined anything close to the fighting force we as a country have today, but they sure created an amendment that I cherish close to my heart, because we are a country of rebels, and we will fight if our freedom is threatened. Civilian resistance has proven in history time and time again to be a major threat to an opposing military force, after all its what made us a country to begin with. Adapt and overcome any situation, we as citizens under invading forces or corrupt government powers have the ability to fight because of this amendment, not just defending ourselves and our families from criminals, in fact rebel forces are known to obtain assets of the enemy, so if we cant legally own modern ordnance, we can sure as hell take some in the heat of battle. Thats why I am all for weapon ownership just as long as you are responsible to everything you do, and strictly proven competent to own such a devastating item.

Evil minds will commit evil deeds no matter what the circumstance. If an opportunity presents itself, they will rape it. So all the "gun bans" will only disarm innocent people from unlawful fire arm attack. Its simple, if I want to commit a crime, im going to break the law anyways, so I dont give a ---- if my weapon is illegally obtained.

Here in Reno Ive met really sweet and nice people that own enough firepower to arm their neighbors around them. Including Barrett .50s, full auto M4/M16s, full auto M60s, .50 cal machine guns, tons of random rifles, handguns, and even a weapons capable M48 patton vietnam tank. If you have the money here, you basically can own it if you go through the right channels.


But TL;DR, I feel that our own sane military members will defend and arm us with assets of under insane corrupt government attack. If under invading forces, they will happily take you in, train you, and arm you to fight. As for large capability weaponry, you can own it just as long you are trained, secure, responsible, sane and under a watchful eye in times of peace.

czubaka

iTrader: (3)

I agree 100%. If a person bent on killing others doesn't have access to guns, he or she doesn't just say "oh well, I guess I'll just not do it". It's even easier and cheaper to make many different types of explosives and incendiary devices than get a gun. Tide and gasoline anyone? Thank God he didn't chuck a bunch of pipe bombs in the audience, the body count would likely have been much higher.

As for someone engaging the shooter had they been carrying? As said before somewhere on here, it would have been very difficult. Through the darkness, smoke, point of view (looking at bright screen vs looking away from), etc, engaging at range would greatly increase the risk of hitting a bystander. Also, if several people had weapons drawn, there's a high possibility of friendly fire (is that the bad guy?). However, if he was directly in front of you and shooting into the crowd, the likely hood of a successful engagement goes up.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Do you prefer watching a series of executions or a fighting chance? I several examples of mass shootings that I've read, it appears that it would be fairly easy to identify the shooter in the room. I'd like to hear from someone trained on this. When I get my CHL in the very near future, I'm going to follow it up with more training with a local group that does tactical shooting a couple times per month.

czubaka

iTrader: (3)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I definitely prefer a fighting chance! And I plan to do the exact same things you're going to do. My only point is the argument that it could have been easily stopped if someone had a gun doesn't take into consideration all the factors.

I'm a huge fan of proper training for firearms (as with driving) and practice, practice, practice. I feel these fulfill the responsibilities of a, uh, responsible gun owner.

I'm reminded of the incident which happened outside the Fairchild AFB hospital. An AF security forces member engaged at shooter at 75yds with an M9...after pedaling like mad to the scene on a bike (or something like that). Four rounds fired, two took out the shooter. The guy was a hero, but had those two rounds struck bystanders, it could have turned out worse. Granted, it's easy to judge after the fact; however, proper training most likely ensured he had a clear shot at the target, and was able to judge the area around/behind the shooter.

As with cars, just because a person can get one doesn't mean they're qualified to use it.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Consider the alternative.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

There's a question I'd like to ask rhetorically... let's say there had been a SEAL, Green Beret, SWAT member, or regular old Marine... basically anybody in the audience who some serious quick reaction training and the mental discipline to establish a tactical solution. Do you think a SEAL would let the fact that he wasn't carrying stop him from trying to take down an active shooter... and succeeding?

Anybody in my list above would not have been one of the scared-to-death panicking-running-for-their-lives-completely-unable-to-defend-themselves citizens getting gunned down as they tried to run out the door. If anybody in that list had been armed, I guarantee you the incident would have gone much differently.

People who have never considered how they will react to a crisis... any crisis, will almost always do what everybody around them is doing. Men will run as fast as they can, and women will either freeze, hide, or run screaming.

I have a metric ***-ton of Anti-Terrorism training. I've been to 2 schools and been credentialed in addition to yearly refreshers.. Having done my tour working the flight-deck, my mass-casualty scenario training is also pretty extensive, and while I haven't ever been put to the test like those people in the theater, I've had those moments where I felt like running, but the training not only told me to stay put, but gave me the ability to process that staying put was not only safest for me, but put me in a position to be safe for others. The psychology of "mass-panic" is well-documented. What is equally well documented is the difference military (or military-style) training makes during an event like that.

As Hustler intoned, simply being able to hit a paper target at a range does not constitute the type of "firearms training" that allows a person to react offensively during a mass-shooting. You also need the mental and tactical discipline not to become a victim before you can engage the shooter.

budget racer

iTrader: (1)

Sam, yes I am referring to the prevention of mass shootings. Now don’t get confused, I’m not anti-gun. Not even close. I support the right for any sane, law-abiding citizen to arm themselves with practically any level of weaponry.

I don’t claim to be a psychologist or any type of gun expert.….but I don’t buy the argument that the shooter would find another method (pipe bombs, etc) of harm. Because they don’t. They choose assault weapons and tactical handguns. I feel that this type of attacker is looking for the glory and control that this type of weaponry provide. Regardless of my opinion of the assailant’s frame of mind, ultimately this is exactly the type of weapons that are being used in these situations. Now, if they were being acquired illegally we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Sadly, that isn’t the case. So my concern is: as a society (not gov’t) are there any suggestions to prevent mass shootings involving assault weapons and tactical handguns?

The analogy that I keep coming back to is: you stick a bunch of kids in a room with a box of magic markers. You tell them that they can play with the markers but that they are not allowed to write on the walls. Inevitably, some kid is going to write on the wall. How long will you allow this to go on until you take back all of the markers? Or, can you find another method to ensure that the wall doesn’t get written-on when the kids have control of the markers?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

ah I get it, we should provide 300,000,000+ citizens with bullet proof vests. You so smart.