Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Batman Shooting

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
You've just listed off shootings. You haven't actually done anything to prove that having John Q Public and his personal Glock on the scene will actually do anything productive. Remember, it actually takes a lot to shoot someone, especially if you're not a psycho. Why do you think that the armies of the world work so hard to create the mental state where their soldiers will shoot a person rather than just shoot at a person?
You probably missed my second post on that, above.

So we have to do your research for you. Please Mike, enlighten us with just how many of these shootings occured in and out of gun free zones. And while you're at it maybe you could do something about letting us know just how effective an armed civilian is at shooting a gunman and not just whoever happens to be standing between or behind said gunman. There's more than just the presence of the possibility, you have to look at if having more guns on the scene is actually effective or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
you have to look at if having more guns on the scene is actually effective or not.
No you don't.

If your argument is that having an armed private citizen there would have been a benefit to the scene, then you have to back that idea up. Support your argument, or I will dismiss it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
If your argument is that having an armed private citizen there would have been a benefit to the scene, then you have to back that idea up. Support your argument, or I will dismiss it.
That is not my argument. My argument is that having gun free zones does not prevent shootings, mass or otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
So we have to do your research for you. Please Mike, enlighten us with just how many of these shootings occured in and out of gun free zones. And while you're at it maybe you could do something about letting us know just how effective an armed civilian is at shooting a gunman and not just whoever happens to be standing between or behind said gunman. There's more than just the presence of the possibility, you have to look at if having more guns on the scene is actually effective or not.
I've made the argument that the armed citizen doesn't need to be ineffective. In point of fact, getting such training is part of responsible firearm ownership.
Most of the mass shootings I can think of off-hand have been in gun-free zones. Several have been listed; demanding more is moving the goal-posts. Not saying they don't happen elsewhere - but it just seems absurd to make the argument that disarmed citizens are safer without backing it up.

I think you're missing a few logical steps in this argument Mike. The former posit flows from the latter there. The question isn't how to stop mass shootings, it's how to make them less common and less severe.

Also, is your argument for gun ownership that they should have to go through USMC (I believe you've said you were in the Marines, correct me if I'm wrong) basic training Solaris?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
I've been deployed before, yes. I think you might be surprised how many folks around here have.
Your military service notwithstanding, I'm not convinced that having a shootout in a public place is a very good idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
You've just listed off shootings. You haven't actually done anything to prove that having John Q Public and his personal Glock on the scene will actually do anything productive. Remember, it actually takes a lot to shoot someone, especially if you're not a psycho. Why do you think that the armies of the world work so hard to create the mental state where their soldiers will shoot a person rather than just shoot at a person?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio...elf-protection

If the Kleck studies are anything to go by, using a gun in self defense works! And most the time you don't have to fire a shot. However in a situation like this, a shot will definitely have to be used. Just because the media doesn't report on every single case of self defense doesn't mean it isn't happening. You also forget that stupidity and ignorance do wonders for someone without mental training. Just look at Zimmerman.

There is also the fact that people came to this movie with their families. When your loved ones are in danger, people will go beyond and above what is necessary to protect them. Need it be taking the bullet for them, or killing the assailant themselves. A month or two ago there was a man on the news that beat an assailant to death with his bare hands when he caught the assailant trying to rape his daughter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
I think you're missing a few logical steps in this argument Mike.
I am not (and have never claimed to be) a master debater, so that is bound to happen.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Blog   Myth-Weavers Status