Gun control debate (merged)

#23,176
#23,176
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, GroverCleveland, davethevol and 3 others
#23,182
#23,182
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
👍
View attachment 473614
Click to expand...
I will say if any of those 10 hit a bystander he should be arrested. Havent heard about it despite the anti gun crowds adamance that it would happen way too much. Now saying he should be arrested, if a civilian was hit, I think one would give him the lightest penalty possible unless it was a kill shot or major crippling shot.
 
#23,183
#23,183
LouderVol said:
I will say if any of those 10 hit a bystander he should be arrested. Havent heard about it despite the anti gun crowds adamance that it would happen way too much. Now saying he should be arrested, if a civilian was hit, I think one would give him the lightest penalty possible unless it was a kill shot or major crippling shot.
Click to expand...
Thats a big risk, and an even bigger risk he took is being taken out by the police himself. 2 big reasons why "a good guy with a gun" stopping a mass shooting is extremely rare.
 
#23,184
#23,184
K-town Vol Fan said:
Thats a big risk, and an even bigger risk he took is being taken out by the police himself. 2 big reasons why "a good guy with a gun" stopping a mass shooting is extremely rare.
Click to expand...
No, it's not extremely rare relative to the shootings. It's extremely rare in the same way shootings are extremely rare. In a month we have had two cases brought up of civilians stopping a mass shooting.

And it is a risk, but I would say far less of one than letting the bad guys have free reign while the cops have a come to Jesus moment for 30 minutes outside. Anyone who conceal carries knows the risk. That's why, despite your belief of it being a big risk, you dont have examples of the good guys hitting a civilian. And it's why I believe it should be a crime if/when it happens, with great power comes responsibility, unless you are the government and there is no responsibility.

Remember the cops have no obligation to protect us. None. Zero. Zilch. If you are waiting on them, you are putting yourself in more danger than taking action. And that action can be running away or hiding, and probably should be. Even if armed.

Armed civilians arent sitting around waiting for the Wild West situation to start shooting up a place willy nilly. There is no evidence of it happening. You guys would parade that case around more than Trump's pee tapes. But you have nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, GroverCleveland, Orangeslice13 and 3 others
#23,185
#23,185
K-town Vol Fan said:
Thats a big risk, and an even bigger risk he took is being taken out by the police himself. 2 big reasons why "a good guy with a gun" stopping a mass shooting is extremely rare.
Click to expand...
Actually almost 90% of the times active shooters encounter a person with a firearm they either give up or kill themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, GroverCleveland and davethevol
#23,186
#23,186
LouderVol said:
No, it's not extremely rare relative to the shootings. It's extremely rare in the same way shootings are extremely rare. In a month we have had two cases brought up of civilians stopping a mass shooting.

And it is a risk, but I would say far less of one than letting the bad guys have free reign while the cops have a come to Jesus moment for 30 minutes outside. Anyone who conceal carries knows the risk. That's why, despite your belief of it being a big risk, you dont have examples of the good guys hitting a civilian. And it's why I believe it should be a crime if/when it happens, with great power comes responsibility, unless you are the government and there is no responsibility.

Remember the cops have no obligation to protect us. None. Zero. Zilch. If you are waiting on them, you are putting yourself in more danger than taking action. And that action can be running away or hiding, and probably should be. Even if armed.

Armed civilians arent sitting around waiting for the Wild West situation to start shooting up a place willy nilly. There is no evidence of it happening. You guys would parade that case around more than Trump's pee tapes. But you have nothing.
Click to expand...
Id say 22 out of 433 is rare.
Who Stops a ‘Bad Guy With a Gun’?
 
#23,187
#23,187
sunnyvol79 said:
And let me clarify my previous post and say I’m not for banning all guns like I said I own 4. But we gotta do something about the war weapons and Ak-47’s. I don’t need a AK and grenade to turkey and squirrel hunt lol
Click to expand...

You believe the second amendment is for squirrel hunting?

Also less than 200 people are year are killed by rifles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#23,190
#23,190
K-town Vol Fan said:
Id say 22 out of 433 is rare.
Who Stops a ‘Bad Guy With a Gun’?
Click to expand...

I’ve seen that. It’s about as biased as possible. They don’t include suicides or “giving up” as being stopped by a gun. As if the killers are just like “that’s enough I guess”.

When killers run away because the police are coming with guns, the ignorant data you included does not count that as being stopped by a gun.
 
#23,192
#23,192
sunnyvol79 said:
Can your shoot up a parade or church with a shotgun and 38 special and kill a few people? Absolutely you can but you can kill so much more and at a more effective rate with an assault rifle and you can have terrible aim too. So it’s no surprise all the nut job mass shooters are opting for the assault rifles.
Click to expand...

You believe I need better aim with a rifle than I do with a shotguns?
 
#23,195
#23,195
K-town Vol Fan said:
Id say 22 out of 433 is rare.
Who Stops a ‘Bad Guy With a Gun’?
Click to expand...

What do you think is the primary element in this equation? Is it that armed good guys don't stop stop active shooters often enough or that there in fact aren't any armed good guys with guns present at such shootings? For instance, what % of these things take place in supposed "gun free" zones? Hells bells, the only reason this particular incident didn't result in more deaths is precisely because this "gun free" zone in fact wasn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#23,196
#23,196
While I’m happy a citizens was able to shoot the assailant, it doesn’t negate the fact that people were killed as a result of this mass shooting. We clearly need better laws/controls to reduce the risk of psychos getting their hands on powerful weapons.

 
#23,197
#23,197
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens and InVOLuntary
#23,198
#23,198
hndog609 said:
What do you think is the primary element in this equation? Is it that armed good guys don't stop stop active shooters often enough or that there in fact aren't any armed good guys with guns present at such shootings? For instance, what % of these things take place in supposed "gun free" zones? Hells bells, the only reason this particular incident didn't result in more deaths is precisely because this "gun free" zone in fact wasn't.
Click to expand...
Look at this quote from the article

“Unlike mass shooting tallies that count a minimum number of people shot or killed, the active attack data includes episodes with fewer casualties, but researchers exclude domestic shootings and gang-related attacks”.
 
#23,199
#23,199
K-town Vol Fan said:
Id say 22 out of 433 is rare.
Who Stops a ‘Bad Guy With a Gun’?
Click to expand...
Pay walled. But that seems to be after the shooting starts. You have cases like the Texas church where the gunman is killed before he kills anyone. That wouldnt show up.

And that's 22 times out of 433 where the damage was limited by civilian intervention. If you are comfortable with an increase in victims by disarming the public that is on you.

What you are betting on is there are more bad guys willing to do bad stuff with guns than there are good guys willing to do good with guns. That's the only way your math works. And with the sheer number of guns out there, that is clearly not the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and McDad
#23,200
#23,200
Volatility said:
While I’m happy a citizens was able to shoot the assailant, it doesn’t negate the fact that people were killed as a result of this mass shooting. We clearly need better laws/controls to reduce the risk of psychos getting their hands on powerful weapons.

Click to expand...


To be clear no level of laws/control will prevent that right?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top