quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Sorry if you wish to conduct such childish hypothetical games, please feel free but please don't try to involve me - I'm definitely the wrong girl for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Nearly three years ago to the day, Jan. 8th, 2011, Rep. Gabby Giffords was giving a speech close to a supermarket. Surrounded by many persons with guns (most of them in law enforcement). Including the shooter, Loughner. In the span of a few heartbeats, this young man managed to wound twelve individuals (including Mrs. Giffords) and kill six others. That's eighteen people, LovMuffin.
The person that took the shooter down, had a sidearm on his hip. Now how did he do it?
A ) Pulled the gun out and fired.
B ) Tackled the shooter to the ground.
Some of those injured, were armed. Your 'fantasy' stops right here, since the answer is 'B'. Imagine if Loughner had an AK? How much damage with a larger magazine, deadlier ammunition, and much higher rate of fire. Could the body count have been higher? Well, you seem to think you know more about firearms, I'll leave it to you to show us whether you live in fantasy or reality.
That you believe that such attacks with firearms only happen in areas with low firearm availability would be laughable if not for the seriousness of the topic. There are plenty of shootings in all the states with very low firearm control laws in effect. And there are plenty of cases in which the individual shot, was armed and never returned fire. We can play these 'games', but the end effect is still the same: you live in a fantasy world. Makes people question why someone that doesn't live in reality should have easy access to firearms, eh?
Because Loughner, had problems with reality. And easy access to firearms. If you are really a responsible adult (firearm owner or not), its hard to understand why you are 'ok' with this issue.
Killers? Obviously you have no clue what that concept means. There are....PLENTY....of moments in which a killer killed someone with a firearm. Be it on a battlefield or a city street. That you think killers ONLY go after non-firearm wielders is complete bullshit. Or have you never heard the term 'cop killer'?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Hey Bama... you know this guy?

Or maybe this little guy?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Nearly three years ago to the day, Jan. 8th, 2011, Rep. Gabby Giffords was giving a speech close to a supermarket. Surrounded by many persons with guns (most of them in law enforcement). Including the shooter, Loughner. In the span of a few heartbeats, this young man managed to wound twelve individuals (including Mrs. Giffords) and kill six others. That's eighteen people, LovMuffin.
The person that took the shooter down, had a sidearm on his hip. Now how did he do it?
A ) Pulled the gun out and fired.
B ) Tackled the shooter to the ground.
Some of those injured, were armed. Your 'fantasy' stops right here, since the answer is 'B'. Imagine if Loughner had an AK? How much damage with a larger magazine, deadlier ammunition, and much higher rate of fire. Could the body count have been higher? Well, you seem to think you know more about firearms, I'll leave it to you to show us whether you live in fantasy or reality.
That you believe that such attacks with firearms only happen in areas with low firearm availability would be laughable if not for the seriousness of the topic. There are plenty of shootings in all the states with very low firearm control laws in effect. And there are plenty of cases in which the individual shot, was armed and never returned fire. We can play these 'games', but the end effect is still the same: you live in a fantasy world. Makes people question why someone that doesn't live in reality should have easy access to firearms, eh?
Because Loughner, had problems with reality. And easy access to firearms. If you are really a responsible adult (firearm owner or not), its hard to understand why you are 'ok' with this issue.
Killers? Obviously you have no clue what that concept means. There are....PLENTY....of moments in which a killer killed someone with a firearm. Be it on a battlefield or a city street. That you think killers ONLY go after non-firearm wielders is complete bullshit. Or have you never heard the term 'cop killer'?

Thank you for proof that gun owners aren't all nutjobs looking for reasons to spray bullets any which way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Nearly three years ago to the day, Jan. 8th, 2011, Rep. Gabby Giffords was giving a speech close to a supermarket. Surrounded by many persons with guns (most of them in law enforcement). Including the shooter, Loughner. In the span of a few heartbeats, this young man managed to wound twelve individuals (including Mrs. Giffords) and kill six others. That's eighteen people, LovMuffin.
The person that took the shooter down, had a sidearm on his hip. Now how did he do it?
A ) Pulled the gun out and fired.
B ) Tackled the shooter to the ground.
Some of those injured, were armed. Your 'fantasy' stops right here, since the answer is 'B'. Imagine if Loughner had an AK? How much damage with a larger magazine, deadlier ammunition, and much higher rate of fire. Could the body count have been higher? Well, you seem to think you know more about firearms, I'll leave it to you to show us whether you live in fantasy or reality.
That you believe that such attacks with firearms only happen in areas with low firearm availability would be laughable if not for the seriousness of the topic. There are plenty of shootings in all the states with very low firearm control laws in effect. And there are plenty of cases in which the individual shot, was armed and never returned fire. We can play these 'games', but the end effect is still the same: you live in a fantasy world. Makes people question why someone that doesn't live in reality should have easy access to firearms, eh?
Because Loughner, had problems with reality. And easy access to firearms. If you are really a responsible adult (firearm owner or not), its hard to understand why you are 'ok' with this issue.
Killers? Obviously you have no clue what that concept means. There are....PLENTY....of moments in which a killer killed someone with a firearm. Be it on a battlefield or a city street. That you think killers ONLY go after non-firearm wielders is complete bullshit. Or have you never heard the term 'cop killer'?

Thank you for proof that gun owners aren't all nutjobs looking for reasons to spray bullets any which way.

There were more than one gun owner there, they took the best tactical approach to that situation. The implication that it is no problem for an unarmed citizen to take down an armed attacker or even that he is as well off as he would be if he was armed would mean, if there were anything to it that there is no reason to be concerned with the armed criminal now would there? Unless he subscribes to the theory that criminals come from Krypton.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Nearly three years ago to the day, Jan. 8th, 2011, Rep. Gabby Giffords was giving a speech close to a supermarket. Surrounded by many persons with guns (most of them in law enforcement). Including the shooter, Loughner. In the span of a few heartbeats, this young man managed to wound twelve individuals (including Mrs. Giffords) and kill six others. That's eighteen people, LovMuffin.
The person that took the shooter down, had a sidearm on his hip. Now how did he do it?
A ) Pulled the gun out and fired.
B ) Tackled the shooter to the ground.
Some of those injured, were armed. Your 'fantasy' stops right here, since the answer is 'B'. Imagine if Loughner had an AK? How much damage with a larger magazine, deadlier ammunition, and much higher rate of fire. Could the body count have been higher? Well, you seem to think you know more about firearms, I'll leave it to you to show us whether you live in fantasy or reality.
That you believe that such attacks with firearms only happen in areas with low firearm availability would be laughable if not for the seriousness of the topic. There are plenty of shootings in all the states with very low firearm control laws in effect. And there are plenty of cases in which the individual shot, was armed and never returned fire. We can play these 'games', but the end effect is still the same: you live in a fantasy world. Makes people question why someone that doesn't live in reality should have easy access to firearms, eh?
Because Loughner, had problems with reality. And easy access to firearms. If you are really a responsible adult (firearm owner or not), its hard to understand why you are 'ok' with this issue.
Killers? Obviously you have no clue what that concept means. There are....PLENTY....of moments in which a killer killed someone with a firearm. Be it on a battlefield or a city street. That you think killers ONLY go after non-firearm wielders is complete bullshit. Or have you never heard the term 'cop killer'?

Thank you for proof that gun owners aren't all nutjobs looking for reasons to spray bullets any which way.

There were more than one gun owner there, they took the best tactical approach to that situation. The implication that it is no problem for an unarmed citizen to take down an armed attacker or even that he is as well off as he would be if he was armed would mean, if there were anything to it that there is no reason to be concerned with the armed criminal now would there? Unless he subscribes to the theory that criminals come from Krypton.

Best tactical approach? No, they reacted without their minds engaging. Its called reaction time. Soldiers whom hear an artillery strike inbound, duck into cover (while the newbie gets blasted). Thinking and acting in those seconds are two very different things. All those with firearms were not expecting anything more than a brief speech from a few people. Their subconscious would behave much differently if there was the sensation of a threat about to take place. Its like walking down a street. One that you have walked hundreds of times. Only this time, someone tries to attack you in surprise. Those first few moments, your not thinking, your reacting. Most people are simply petrified. Kinda of like the opening seconds of that 2011 shooting.

That the guy tackled the shooter, reacted and decided on a course of action. Good or not, its the one he made. Even though he was armed. For you and others, sadly, would have drawn the gun, and the body count would have been so much larger. So was the guy thinking tactically? Or just merely reacting quickly to danger?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Modern artillery is supersonic. You dont hear it until it is too late. Anyone who says that knows nothing about the military. Period. End of discussion.

But I doubt he heard the blast from the gun. Unless he lived a while.

quote:

You are trying to create the impression that I took a stand that I didn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Nearly three years ago to the day, Jan. 8th, 2011, Rep. Gabby Giffords was giving a speech close to a supermarket. Surrounded by many persons with guns (most of them in law enforcement). Including the shooter, Loughner. In the span of a few heartbeats, this young man managed to wound twelve individuals (including Mrs. Giffords) and kill six others. That's eighteen people, LovMuffin.
The person that took the shooter down, had a sidearm on his hip. Now how did he do it?
A ) Pulled the gun out and fired.
B ) Tackled the shooter to the ground.
Some of those injured, were armed. Your 'fantasy' stops right here, since the answer is 'B'. Imagine if Loughner had an AK? How much damage with a larger magazine, deadlier ammunition, and much higher rate of fire. Could the body count have been higher? Well, you seem to think you know more about firearms, I'll leave it to you to show us whether you live in fantasy or reality.
That you believe that such attacks with firearms only happen in areas with low firearm availability would be laughable if not for the seriousness of the topic. There are plenty of shootings in all the states with very low firearm control laws in effect. And there are plenty of cases in which the individual shot, was armed and never returned fire. We can play these 'games', but the end effect is still the same: you live in a fantasy world. Makes people question why someone that doesn't live in reality should have easy access to firearms, eh?
Because Loughner, had problems with reality. And easy access to firearms. If you are really a responsible adult (firearm owner or not), its hard to understand why you are 'ok' with this issue.
Killers? Obviously you have no clue what that concept means. There are....PLENTY....of moments in which a killer killed someone with a firearm. Be it on a battlefield or a city street. That you think killers ONLY go after non-firearm wielders is complete bullshit. Or have you never heard the term 'cop killer'?

Thank you for proof that gun owners aren't all nutjobs looking for reasons to spray bullets any which way.

There were more than one gun owner there, they took the best tactical approach to that situation. The implication that it is no problem for an unarmed citizen to take down an armed attacker or even that he is as well off as he would be if he was armed would mean, if there were anything to it that there is no reason to be concerned with the armed criminal now would there? Unless he subscribes to the theory that criminals come from Krypton.

Best tactical approach? No, they reacted without their minds engaging. Its called reaction time. Soldiers whom hear an artillery strike inbound, duck into cover (while the newbie gets blasted). Thinking and acting in those seconds are two very different things. All those with firearms were not expecting anything more than a brief speech from a few people. Their subconscious would behave much differently if there was the sensation of a threat about to take place. Its like walking down a street. One that you have walked hundreds of times. Only this time, someone tries to attack you in surprise. Those first few moments, your not thinking, your reacting. Most people are simply petrified. Kinda of like the opening seconds of that 2011 shooting.

That the guy tackled the shooter, reacted and decided on a course of action. Good or not, its the one he made. Even though he was armed. For you and others, sadly, would have drawn the gun, and the body count would have been so much larger. So was the guy thinking tactically? Or just merely reacting quickly to danger?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

You are trying to create the impression that I took a stand that I didn't.

No...not trying for that impression... I know your views on gun safety... Just trying to show you that more regulation is needed to keep guns out of the hands of these kind of people.

Butch