RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment ***

RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

truckinslave -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/30/2013 12:59:35 PM)
I've got your dream world swinging, but here's another one: The one in which more than 1% of the population has more that a 1% chance in a gunfight with me (and that specifically includes active duty cops, the vast majority of which cannot compete effectively beyond the "C" level (i.e. bottom third) of most PPC matches)

PeonForHer -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/30/2013 5:29:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave I've got your dream world swinging, but here's another one: The one in which more than 1% of the population has more that a 1% chance in a gunfight with me (and that specifically includes active duty cops, the vast majority of which cannot compete effectively beyond the "C" level (i.e. bottom third) of most PPC matches) What 'gunfight'? I could kill you without any problem at all, despite never having even touched a gun. All I'd need to do is surprise you. I'd just be ordinary - harmless, friendly - till your guard is down and you don't expect what'll happen next. It's very easy to murder someone, really.

Yachtie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/30/2013 5:48:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 listen again to the first 30 seconds of this vid.. this was not 60 minutes alone, it was an experiment along with a Police Investigator, a firearms instructor & the Bethlehem Police Dept to see how average people without crisis training would react.. so it seems the cops want gun owners to realize a real situation is not like playing a video game, etc.. Well, duh !! if the cops need to do this experiment to make gun owners realize that its not like a video game or watching dirty harry on tv then that shows they do indeed live in a dream world.. No, it doesn't. It only shows that cops think most people live in a dream world. That has not been substantiated. But I'll use the stats. You can use whatever you want.

Politesub53 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/30/2013 6:03:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Who gives a damn about ABC's vids? The stats on defensive use of firearms says it all. Not all defensive uses need even be successful except to the anti-gunner who sees such as proof of their assertions. Not all cops uses of firearms are successful neither do they never hit a non-combatant. The anti-gunners are cowards, preferring nearer to zero defensive capability to at least being on par to that of the assailant or better. The vids prove nothing. Yes yes, the anti-gunners are cowards....... Thats why we walk about unarmed, without fear and unlikely to get shot by some nutter with a gun. [8\|]

Politesub53 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/30/2013 6:05:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Wyatt Earp never stopped a bullet. Died in bed at age 80- hero, villain, cook, sheriff, gambler, pimp..... That sums up the problem.......Too many Wyatt Earps.

lovmuffin -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/30/2013 6:07:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 And no, I don't think gun control "might be a cool idea", as you put it.. I am Canadian and know I the stats show gun control countries are in fact considerably safer.. "The impact of our 65 million handgun population209 can be seen by comparing ourselves to countries that strongly limit access to handguns. For example, in 1995 the U.S. firearms death rate was 13.7 per 100,000; in Canada 3.9 per 100,000; in Australia 2.9 per 100,000; and, in England and Wales it was 0.4 per 100,000" I'm going to infer that you think more gun control in the US is "a cool idea". The statistics you posted might make it seem to an anti gun person or a casual reader to prove it, but really doesn't. The US is a different place with a different culture. The same kind of gun control used in Canada, Wales, England or Australia will not work in the US. I'll point you post #548 in this thread. NBA explains it from a perspective I would never have come up with. 50 years ago we had more guns per capita than we do now and the murder rates were much less. We have a problem that goes far beyond just the guns. quote: ORIGINAL: so it seems the cops want gun owners to realize a real situation is not like playing a video game, etc.. I think more of us realize that than you realize. Tell us something we don't know. [8D] I even watched the video again. I didn't get much more out of it than picking up on additional criticisms. And I know there are cops that think they should be the only ones packin heat. quote: ORIGINAL: and to address your contention that mass shooters don't have expert training, some do some don't, but if you are in that situation you don't choose how much training the mass shooter has or how many guns, how many are automatic, semi-automatic, how many rounds he will shoot, etc.. lesser shooters it seems like multiple weapons that can shoot many rounds quickly to maximize the number of people they can kill in their spree.. The only mass shooter I can think of who had expert training was an ex marine who shot up a Texas university campus from a tower back in the 1960's. Other than that, those Columbine assholes got in some practice at the range with the weapons they used but I wouldn't call them experts. Those 2 little dip shits, ages 13 and 10 I think, who shot up an Arkansas school yard from a distance in the woods with rifles had some training but they were far from being experts. The overwhelming majority of these shooters are not experts. Just because someone doesn't have a weapon or weapons that can shoot many rounds quickly (I'm thinking you mean semiautomatics with high capacity magazines) doesn't mean they can't dispatch innocents quickly. Any repeating firearm or firearms will suffice and create as much or more carnage as a semi auto. If an idiot goes into school or somewhere and starts shooting people, it's like shooting fish in a barrel assuming no one around has the means to respond. The idiot can keep on shooting, reloading quickly and uploading between shots. It just won't freaking matter what class of repeating firearm he's got.......much if at all.......probably......most likely. quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.vpc.org/studies/uninfive.htm Chapter Five: Facing Facts http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm Unintended Consequences Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice for Self-Defense So far I've read the summery of the anti gun Violence Policy Center report you linked to. One thing I'll point out right off without doing more research or reading the section that was summarized is, I call bull shit on this: "Handguns in the real world as opposed to the industry's fantasy world of virtuous defensive gun use make people who own them much less safe. Using the experts' own words, this report shows that the overwhelming majority of people who own handguns: are ignorant of or ignore basic handgun safety rules;" I'll have to read the report and get back to you. And fuck you very much for the homework assignment [:D] now that I'm compelled to read all of that. In the mean time I'll refer you to post #613. Maybe if you ask real nice, igor2003 will find you some more instances of defensive gun use. After all, he said it was easy.

lovmuffin -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/30/2013 6:10:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Wyatt Earp never stopped a bullet. Died in bed at age 80- hero, villain, cook, sheriff, gambler, pimp..... That sums up the problem.......Too many Wyatt Earps. Or not enough of them. [8D]

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/30/2013 10:15:58 PM)
listen again to the first 30 seconds of this vid ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pay attention to the whole thing the game was fixed. A the "shooter" was a highly trained professional B he knew where the "armed student" was going to be C the "armed student" had to 1 determine that an "attack" was going on and 2 that it was the test and not a real attack D all they proved was that if Paladin knew in advance what table Ben Cartwright would been sitting at Cartwright would be in trouble when Paladin kicked the door of the restaurant in with intent to kill. E the one person they had with actual firearms experience had two "shooters" and got one of them F all they proved that once again ABC cheats

tj444 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/30/2013 11:00:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 And no, I don't think gun control "might be a cool idea", as you put it.. I am Canadian and know I the stats show gun control countries are in fact considerably safer.. "The impact of our 65 million handgun population209 can be seen by comparing ourselves to countries that strongly limit access to handguns. For example, in 1995 the U.S. firearms death rate was 13.7 per 100,000; in Canada 3.9 per 100,000; in Australia 2.9 per 100,000; and, in England and Wales it was 0.4 per 100,000" I'm going to infer that you think more gun control in the US is "a cool idea". The statistics you posted might make it seem to an anti gun person or a casual reader to prove it, but really doesn't. The US is a different place with a different culture. The same kind of gun control used in Canada, Wales, England or Australia will not work in the US. I'll point you post #548 in this thread. NBA explains it from a perspective I would never have come up with. 50 years ago we had more guns per capita than we do now and the murder rates were much less. We have a problem that goes far beyond just the guns. quote: ORIGINAL: so it seems the cops want gun owners to realize a real situation is not like playing a video game, etc.. I think more of us realize that than you realize. Tell us something we don't know. [8D] I even watched the video again. I didn't get much more out of it than picking up on additional criticisms. And I know there are cops that think they should be the only ones packin heat. quote: ORIGINAL: and to address your contention that mass shooters don't have expert training, some do some don't, but if you are in that situation you don't choose how much training the mass shooter has or how many guns, how many are automatic, semi-automatic, how many rounds he will shoot, etc.. lesser shooters it seems like multiple weapons that can shoot many rounds quickly to maximize the number of people they can kill in their spree.. The only mass shooter I can think of who had expert training was an ex marine who shot up a Texas university campus from a tower back in the 1960's. Other than that, those Columbine assholes got in some practice at the range with the weapons they used but I wouldn't call them experts. Those 2 little dip shits, ages 13 and 10 I think, who shot up an Arkansas school yard from a distance in the woods with rifles had some training but they were far from being experts. The overwhelming majority of these shooters are not experts. Just because someone doesn't have a weapon or weapons that can shoot many rounds quickly (I'm thinking you mean semiautomatics with high capacity magazines) doesn't mean they can't dispatch innocents quickly. Any repeating firearm or firearms will suffice and create as much or more carnage as a semi auto. If an idiot goes into school or somewhere and starts shooting people, it's like shooting fish in a barrel assuming no one around has the means to respond. The idiot can keep on shooting, reloading quickly and uploading between shots. It just won't freaking matter what class of repeating firearm he's got.......much if at all.......probably......most likely. quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.vpc.org/studies/uninfive.htm Chapter Five: Facing Facts http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm Unintended Consequences Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice for Self-Defense So far I've read the summery of the anti gun Violence Policy Center report you linked to. One thing I'll point out right off without doing more research or reading the section that was summarized is, I call bull shit on this: "Handguns in the real world as opposed to the industry's fantasy world of virtuous defensive gun use make people who own them much less safe. Using the experts' own words, this report shows that the overwhelming majority of people who own handguns: are ignorant of or ignore basic handgun safety rules;" I'll have to read the report and get back to you. And fuck you very much for the homework assignment [:D] now that I'm compelled to read all of that. In the mean time I'll refer you to post #613. Maybe if you ask real nice, igor2003 will find you some more instances of defensive gun use. After all, he said it was easy. Oh I agree with NBA that a good part of the stats is that there is a different culture between Canada & the US (& in previous threads I have said that before also).. Canadians are (imo) more like the UK (certainly more culturally like the UK than the US) but yet Canada's stats are higher (Canada 3.9 per 100,000; and, in England and Wales it was 0.4 per 100,000).. Imo, if Canada was not positioned right next to the US & the fact that guns do get smuggled into Canada from it, along with US cultural influence from tv, movies, etc, the common border (ease of travel) then the stats between Canada and the UK would be closer than it is.. and the gap would be much wider between Canada & the US.. this is part of the Americanization of Canada.. it accounts for a higher death rate than there truly should be, imo.. To a certain degree, the southern states of the US get a certain cultural effect from Mexico also.. I had never eaten or even heard of a fish taco until coming to the southern US.. (& I am not very fond of my fish that way).. btw, gun control in Canada is not so much that you can't own a gun, but that you can not carry a gun with you except when going to the range to shoot it, to sell it or get it repaired, or for hunting, other than that, you can not legally carry it, you must keep it in your home.. As far as some people shooting a bad guy, I expect some of the gun owners out there actually do practice frequently and do things so they are much better prepared & can defend themselves considerably better than those in the vids did & yes some will kill or incapacitate the bad guy... I think if someone plays paintball, even tho its recreation that would be good training, actually.. imo that would at least teach you how to evade, how to shoot while maintaining cover and be the closest to simulating a real event.. as what was said in the vids, if you don't prepare you could end up shot or dead.. As I asked in a previous post, how many gun owners even practice regularly and do those things they need to do/know when in a real event? I even wonder how often cops, security guards, etc practice and how well prepared they really are.. I expect cops that aren’t properly prepared can freeze up too.. (I already mentioned friendly fire).. Contrary to what you think I think.. I grew up on a farm and my father had a rifle but not for self defense, it was for coyotes if they attacked our livestock/animals & if he needed to put down a sick animal.. there are legit reasons for having a (long) gun.. And no, its not that I think gun control in the US is “cool”, I just happen to think all the MEATHEADS running around with a concealed gun on them 24/7 is f’n dangerous.. and that too many of those MEATHEADS are f’n stupid (or mentally ill, etc).. I know my view/opinion on gun control wont change anything here, I just see concealed carry handguns as being considerably more bad than good & I don't understand the fixation on that "right" to carry.. I also object to schools becoming prisons, cuz that is what they are becoming.. I would not want any kid of mine going to a school where they needed to go thru metal detectors, have their locker searched at any time, teachers & guards with guns, chalkboards that double as bullet proof shields.. I just don’t see that being a good environment (which is why I would send the kid to school somewhere else like the UK that didn’t need all that)… Enjoy yer reading.. [:D]

eulero83 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/31/2013 2:58:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD listen again to the first 30 seconds of this vid ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pay attention to the whole thing the game was fixed. A the "shooter" was a highly trained professional B he knew where the "armed student" was going to be C the "armed student" had to 1 determine that an "attack" was going on and 2 that it was the test and not a real attack D all they proved was that if Paladin knew in advance what table Ben Cartwright would been sitting at Cartwright would be in trouble when Paladin kicked the door of the restaurant in with intent to kill. E the one person they had with actual firearms experience had two "shooters" and got one of them F all they proved that once again ABC cheats it was not a competition in "who is going to score the more hits on the opponent's body", you see it that way but if it was at the first hit the student should be out of game, but they didn't realized it untill everything was over, even if the shooter was another student he would have come in the room shoot the teacher and looked at the students, the armed student in the class would have fumbled with the gun, missed the target, shoot other students, not realized there was another shooter anyway, the point was how an average gun owner can react under stress, not who was the best shooter between the student and the instructor.

joether -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/31/2013 4:20:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 listen again to the first 30 seconds of this vid.. this was not 60 minutes alone, it was an experiment along with a Police Investigator, a firearms instructor & the Bethlehem Police Dept to see how average people without crisis training would react.. so it seems the cops want gun owners to realize a real situation is not like playing a video game, etc.. Well, duh !! if the cops need to do this experiment to make gun owners realize that its not like a video game or watching dirty harry on tv then that shows they do indeed live in a dream world.. The ABC Experiment One of the big problems that comes up most often, is 'how does an individual react to a deadly change in their environment'? Notice the ABC video tried to explain the background BEFORE getting to the question? That was there to simply explain that they did not take people straight off the street, hand them a firearm and go straight to the test. That would be unfair at best, and failing the nature of the question at worst. Remember that the video was trying to use SCIENCE to understand the outcome. They walked into the idea to ask the first question 'how well trained should these individuals be with firearms?' Not exactly an easy question to be honest. An they did not wish to give aware in any form the nature of the actual experiment (or that there was an experiment in the process). As the point of the experiment was to see how people would react 'on the spur of the moment'. So they gave them the normal 'gun ownership training' seminar for anyone in that state. Afterward, they had them practice pulling the firearm out quickly, getting aim on target and RELAXING even when the andreline is pumping. So the experiment was to bring in three separate types of attacks and see how the individual handled the moment of crisis. Medical science was explained how the body reacts to situations like this. Likewise, some psychology was explained on how the mind reacts and sends signals to every part of the body. In many ways, the folks doing the tests already had a decent idea of the outcome. But like science, one must collect the data and examine it after to see what conclusions can be drawn. The evidence shows what was expected: most of those in the class either ran for their lives or were killed without doing much of anything to the attacker(s). Yet, many gun owners have raised a number of points that I feel demonstrate a total lack of knowledge of the whole question. That the holsters were not convenient to retrieve the gun. That no one wears body armor like that. Nor fire 'paint' bullets. Or that the attackers knew where in the room the candidate would be located. To each of these there is, I think, a reasonable reason for it: The holster was a standard type. It was important not to give the candidates a 'fast drawing holster', NOT, because to fudge the results; but to give the 'Joe average' guy with a holster in the same situation. Body armor was used for safety reasons. Not one gun owner can create the same situation for testing purposes and guarantee 100% all people come out of it mostly uninjured. Hence the reason for wearing body armor. Same reason for using paint rounds rather than REAL ammo. Then again, if the person with the gun knew they had paint rounds (which they did), why did they bother to engage the target rather than flee? Again, in the 'heat of the moment', the brain does not think on stuff like that. An finally, would it have mattered if the attacker didn't know where the candidate was sitting? As all the ones that drew guns were pretty damn obvious save for one (and all of them were killed). You can complain all you want on the experiment. However, how does one create these sort of experiments to truly test things out, without giving it away to the candidates ahead of time? If the person believes they will be attacked, can they hardly be taken seriously in the experiment? We can look at the real world for examples as well. When Rep. Gabby Giffords was attacked, the person standing next to the attacker (who was armed with a gun) tackled the gun. Why not just use the gun? It would have been point blank range by a well studied individual! The point is to ask these questions, in the most fairest ways possible without pushing an agenda. And that is frankly very tough to do. Unlike automobiles, the number of actual studies similar to this one from ABC are extremely far and few in between. Is it really ethical to push to get people to have guns for political reasons. That if that person was placed in danger, the gun ends up getting them killed or other innocents rather than the attacker(s). Would it not be wise to ask serious questions, follow up with well defined experiments, and understand the best we can of the results? Or just assume we are as 'badass' in real life as we are in Battlefield 4?

Nosathro -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/31/2013 7:54:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin I thought this was worth reposting as it was toward the end of the other thread, and it's on every post in the signature line from tj444. While they are worth a watch they only prove the need for training and practice. I thought the vids were interesting.. the most interesting aspect to me was how the shock and stress of being attacked affected the different unknowing participants that thought the attack was real.. I think how they would react in a real event is something few gun owners have even thought about.. You hear about friendly fire (by military, by cops) and these vids explain/show how that can so easily happen when everyone is freaking out when they are in a real situation.. If I recall correctly,.. the ones shooting back didn't do enough to protect themselves, the girl just stood there, straight up, the one guy sorta squatted down but not enough, and another dude just sat there frozen, he never even got his gun out.. one innocent student almost got hit (by the girl firing back), and the guy shooting back didn't even know what the second shooter was doing (if he was a bad guy or a good guy).. and yes, the one guy said you would have to practice frequently, cuz even going a month without that and you are screwed in a real event.. so the question is, in actuality how many gun owners get anything but a little training and then think that's all they need? I suspect very few practice at the level needed.. I think a real shooter (given how many people have been killed by one in real events) would be acting pretty much like the shooters in the vids.. I don't think the shooters are under the same kind of stress or the same amount of stress as those being shot at.. I expect most shooters have already considered that they will eventually be killed when the cops arrive and so their goal is just to kill as many as possible before that happens.. A staged “experiment” filmed by ABC news supposedly “proves” concealed carry does not work. Here are some ACTUAL instances that show that gun ownership (not necessarily concealed carry) has and does work. It didn’t take very long to find these. I’m sure there are plenty more instances that can be found just as easily. http://www.guns.com/2013/10/22/az-concealed-carrier-stops-gunman-opened-fire-rifle-weekend-party/ https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-departments/true-stories/wisconsin-crime-stopped-by-legally-armed-citizen/ This one lists 8 separate instances. http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/crime/8-horrible-crimes-stopped-by-legal-gun-owners.html http://www.guns.com/2012/08/01/texas-gun-owner-shoot-out/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/27/former-firefighter-shoots-kills-armed-robber-with-legal-concealed-handgun-when-i-got-my-chance-i-had-to-take-it/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/07/17/surveillance-vid-shows-71-year-old-concealed-carry-holder-opening-fire-on-would-be-robbers/ http://azdailysun.com/news/local/good-samaritan-argues-for-civilian-gun-use/article_52a87d68-9487-53cf-9bf6-acd351aab835.html Information taken from a study done by the Cato Institute: http://marquettetribune.org/2012/02/14/news/concealed-carry-prevents-more-crime-than-it-creates-study-says/ The Blaze one of the most ultra right wing news sources there. The Cato Institute funded by ultra right wing and their studies have shown nothing but bigotry and racism in their views.

Nosathro -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/31/2013 8:04:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD listen again to the first 30 seconds of this vid ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pay attention to the whole thing the game was fixed. A the "shooter" was a highly trained professional B he knew where the "armed student" was going to be C the "armed student" had to 1 determine that an "attack" was going on and 2 that it was the test and not a real attack D all they proved was that if Paladin knew in advance what table Ben Cartwright would been sitting at Cartwright would be in trouble when Paladin kicked the door of the restaurant in with intent to kill. E the one person they had with actual firearms experience had two "shooters" and got one of them F all they proved that once again ABC cheats Nope game was not fix. In most situations if not all even the police have to determine if an attack is going on and who. Yes it was a test, I suppose you wanted real guns and real blood. Some of the students did have training, one up to 100 hours. The "Attacker" did not know where the student was. Note all the students were helmeted and dressed the same, so how could the "Shooter" know who was who. Test was supervised by Police even a police video shows an "expert" accidentally shoots himself in the foot. The test was very accurate and this test has been done over many times and the results are the same as ABC. It just that the pro gun crazies can't let go of their phallic symbols.

Yachtie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/31/2013 8:10:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Who gives a damn about ABC's vids? The stats on defensive use of firearms says it all. Not all defensive uses need even be successful except to the anti-gunner who sees such as proof of their assertions. Not all cops uses of firearms are successful neither do they never hit a non-combatant. The anti-gunners are cowards, preferring nearer to zero defensive capability to at least being on par to that of the assailant or better. The vids prove nothing. Yes yes, the anti-gunners are cowards....... Thats why we walk about unarmed, without fear and unlikely to get shot by some nutter with a gun. [8\|] Anti-gunners prefer being the noble victims. And you're right, your odds of actually getting shot are quite small.

Nosathro -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/31/2013 8:14:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Who gives a damn about ABC's vids? The stats on defensive use of firearms says it all. Not all defensive uses need even be successful except to the anti-gunner who sees such as proof of their assertions. Not all cops uses of firearms are successful neither do they never hit a non-combatant. The anti-gunners are cowards, preferring nearer to zero defensive capability to at least being on par to that of the assailant or better. The vids prove nothing. Yes yes, the anti-gunners are cowards....... Thats why we walk about unarmed, without fear and unlikely to get shot by some nutter with a gun. [8\|] Anti-gunners prefer being the noble victims. And you're right, your odds of actually getting shot are quite small. Yep defense stats show it all, only about 24% of those defending themselves with a gun will fire and only about 4% will actually hit their target, I wonder where the other 96% goes?

eulero83 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/31/2013 8:38:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Who gives a damn about ABC's vids? The stats on defensive use of firearms says it all. Not all defensive uses need even be successful except to the anti-gunner who sees such as proof of their assertions. Not all cops uses of firearms are successful neither do they never hit a non-combatant. The anti-gunners are cowards, preferring nearer to zero defensive capability to at least being on par to that of the assailant or better. The vids prove nothing. Yes yes, the anti-gunners are cowards....... Thats why we walk about unarmed, without fear and unlikely to get shot by some nutter with a gun. [8\|] Anti-gunners prefer being the noble victims. And you're right, your odds of actually getting shot are quite small. I don't know in what kind of shitty place you think others live...

igor2003 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/31/2013 8:42:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro The Blaze one of the most ultra right wing news sources there. The Cato Institute funded by ultra right wing and their studies have shown nothing but bigotry and racism in their views. So, are you saying that just because the Blaze is right wing you think what they reported in these instances didn't happen? And since the Cato Institute is right wing, their study has less merit than a staged "experiment" where the subjects were given guns not of their own choosing, fake ammunition, shirts designed to make retrieving their weapon difficult, made to wear gloves to make getting and using their unfamiliar weapon more difficult, and head gear that hampers vision and hearing. The subjects knew the ammunition was fake, and so didn't take the same precautions they might have in a real situation. The "attackers" knew who the test subject was beforehand and knew where they would be sitting. And everyone besides the test subject were in on the setup, being either other LEOs or crew from ABC and so "created" confusion that they claim was supposed to re-create a "real life" situation. And somehow this idiotic mock-up is presented that somehow it "proves" that concealed carry doesn't work. Yep, definitely more believable than the Cato study. [sm=yeahright.gif]

Kirata -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/31/2013 8:50:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro The Blaze one of the most ultra right wing news sources there. The Cato Institute funded by ultra right wing and their studies have shown nothing but bigotry and racism in their views. The only thing more foolish than trying to get away with posting a Genetic Fallacy is doing it over and over again. K.

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/31/2013 9:18:59 AM)
What 'gunfight'? I could kill you without any problem at all, despite never having even touched a gun. All I'd need to do is surprise you. I'd just be ordinary - harmless, friendly - till your guard is down and you don't expect what'll happen next. It's very easy to murder someone, really. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you, you finally admit that the availability of guns would not inhibit criminals.

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (10/31/2013 9:25:13 AM)
it was not a competition in "who is going to score the more hits on the opponent's body", you see it that way but if it was at the first hit the student should be out of game, but they didn't realized it untill everything was over, even if the shooter was another student he would have come in the room shoot the teacher and looked at the students, the armed student in the class would have fumbled with the gun, missed the target, shoot other students, not realized there was another shooter anyway, the point was how an average gun owner can react under stress, not who was the best shooter between the student and the instructor. _--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If we pretend for a moment that the demonstration had any contact with reality had the last one had but one assailant (they used two to stack the odds) the "armed students" would have stopped one of the six attacks. When you factor in that mass shooters are losers who surrender or commit suicide when faced with armed opposition it would be a greater percentage. One in six is better than zero in six.

Page: << < prev 30 31 [32] 33 34 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625