codeorama Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 One of the things that I read a lot regarding guns is that if more people had guns, there would be less crime. To be honest, I've probably even said it before, so I'm not criticizing anyone for saying that. However, over the last few days, I have thought more about it and while I am a very responsible person who take guns and gun safety extremely serious, I know people with guns that I just don't trust 100% with gun safety and/or judgement. I can imagine being in a situation where IF I was carrying, what would it take to make me draw and/or fire. Obviously if I felt that my life was in immediate danger (or my son), clearly that's a no brainer, but judgement is a huge issue. I could see the Orlando situation being worse if more people had guns. Sure, maybe the shooter dies sooner and fewer people die, but that isn't a sure thing. Many more could have died by "friendly fire" This is not an attempt to be funny, just something that I can relate to, but in video games, games like COD have no friendly fire, meaning you can't kill your own teammates. However, Rainbow 6 siege does have friendly fire and its very realistic in terms of damage etc... I often find myself hesitating in that game because sometimes, you don't recognize the enemy as opposed to your teammates. And hell, in the game, they have a name tags over their heads, but in those split seconds, stuff happens. I can't imagine how that would be in real life. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 And I suppose actual statistical comparisons between real countries of gun related homicide rates, gun related suicide rates and gun related accidental deaths are easy to fake. Its not "easy to believe" - it is a statistical certainty. statistics...or more specifically those using them, lie all the time but it is undeniable if you reduce access to guns people will kill themselves(suicide being a major%) and others less with guns unless it is a gay bar obviously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) One of the things that I read a lot regarding guns is that if more people had guns, there would be less crime. To be honest, I've probably even said it before, so I'm not criticizing anyone for saying that. However, over the last few days, I have thought more about it and while I am a very responsible person who take guns and gun safety extremely serious, I know people with guns that I just don't trust 100% with gun safety and/or judgement. I can imagine being in a situation where IF I was carrying, what would it take to make me draw and/or fire. Obviously if I felt that my life was in immediate danger (or my son), clearly that's a no brainer, but judgement is a huge issue. I could see the Orlando situation being worse if more people had guns. Sure, maybe the shooter dies sooner and fewer people die, but that isn't a sure thing. Many more could have died by "friendly fire" This is not an attempt to be funny, just something that I can relate to, but in video games, games like COD have no friendly fire, meaning you can't kill your own teammates. However, Rainbow 6 siege does have friendly fire and its very realistic in terms of damage etc... I often find myself hesitating in that game because sometimes, you don't recognize the enemy as opposed to your teammates. And hell, in the game, they have a name tags over their heads, but in those split seconds, stuff happens. I can't imagine how that would be in real life. This is something that really became clear to me after the Oregon college shooting. There was a vet in the area with a gun. His response was to get some other people together and barricade himself in a room. Realistically, he had no impact on the situation. His answer was that he had no idea how many shooters there were, if there were other good guys around with guns, the police response time, had no way to designate himself as a good and had nobody to watch his back and given all of that going into an active shooter situation would be reckless. Given the current laws in many states where it doesn't really require a lot of training to be able to carry, it isn't hard to imagine if there are a lot of people with guns that you just increase your risk of getting shot in cases like Orlando. You see the shooter. You have a gun. You get ready to fire. But the situation is somewhat dark (I'm assuming it being a night club there was probably normal night club lighting) and chaotic. Somebody behind you with a gun, that isn't well trained, hears the shooting looks, in the direction of the shooting, and sees you with your gun, and they shoot you in the back as you're shooting the shooter. Now certainly, I think lots of people carrying that have good training would be an ideal situation. But that's not something practically easy to achieve. Edited June 14, 2016 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) This is something that really became clear to me after the Oregon college shooting. There was a vet in the area with a gun. His response was to get some other people together and barricade himself in a room. Realistically, he had no impact on the situation. His answer was that he had no idea how many shooters there were, if there were other good guys around with guns, the police response time, had no way to designate himself as a good and had nobody to watch his back and given all of that going into an active shooter situation would be reckless. But this is the response any sane person should have. The "rambo" bull**** is stuff perpetrated by the left to make anyone who supports carrying a gun look like a lunatic that uses movies as their point of reference, or by actual lunatics who use movies as their point of reference. He didn't have an impact on the situation because the shooter didn't come near him or the people he was protecting. If you were in that room would you rather there be a vet with a gun or not? I know which I'd prefer. I wish he had been in the room the shooter targeted. Might have had a direct impact. Edited June 14, 2016 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) But this is the response any sane person should have. The "rambo" bull**** is stuff perpetrated by the left to make anyone who supports carrying a gun look like a lunatic that uses movies as their point of reference, or by actual lunatics who use movies as their point of reference. He didn't have an impact on the situation because the shooter didn't come near him or the people he was protecting. If you were in that room would you rather there be a vet with a gun or not? I know which I'd prefer. I wish he had been in the room the shooter targeted. Might have had a direct impact. Are you claiming that George Zimmerman wouldn't run into an active shooter situation with his gun drawn? Even cops end up shooting innocent people. It isn't hard to imagine that people with no to little training wouldn't be even more apt to shoot innocent people. Edited June 14, 2016 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) So many people embracing thoughtlessness nowadays. They come to the conclusion that they want (or that they're told they should want by their side) without ever activating their brains and then use a crowbar to cram whatever faulty logic they can scrape up into their argument, again without thinking about if it actually makes sense. TWA, I love you but I gotta say that you've turned that into an art form. Edited June 14, 2016 by Sacks 'n' Stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Are you claiming that George Zimmerman wouldn't run into an active shooter situation with his gun drawn? Even cops end up shooting innocent people. It isn't hard to imagine that people with no to little training wouldn't be even more apt to shoot innocent people. What, no? How does George Zimmerman not fall into the category of lunatic? Are you unaware of who George Zimmerman actually is? What does cops shooting innocent people have to do with anything? How does someone with little to no training have to do with a military vet? Could you dance around my question any more? I'll answer that for you - no. Between this and your nonsense about converting guns into automatics, I'm thoroughly disappointed with you. You're almost always much better than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 statistics...or more specifically those using them, lie all the time The common refrain of people who simply don't like what the statistics are telling them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 The common refrain of people who simply don't like what the statistics are telling them. no, it's true. both sides throw around statistics they don't understand. i posted this in the other thread, but it's interesting what qualifies as a mass shooting these days. it's anything with with 4 or more deaths involved. which means there's events that no person in their right mind would consider a 'mass shooting' the way we use the term, that is counted in the statistics. it's kind of like whether we include/exclude suicides in the gun violence statistics and how it changes the numbers. again, no one (without an agenda) would agree that suicides belong in a number called 'gun violence' when the context of the conversation is how dangerous it is for us because of other people with guns. statistics are routinely used to mislead, by people of all political persuasions, and it only works because the vast majority of people either don't understand statistics, or are unable/unwilling to critically think about what the statistics say/mean. it's not that statistics are bad, it's that people often use them to intentionally mislead, and too many people are unaware of it. (and because around here you apparently have to say this, else you be forced into the other extreme by some people: Yes, I believe the NRA does the exact same thing when it's convenient for them to do so) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 I think the biggest problem with guns in clubs is that it probably highly increases the chances of people getting shot when there isn't someone trying to shoot the place up. It'd be like a stereotypical wild west saloon but darker, way more crowded, more chaotic, and with more dangerous weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 The common refrain of people who simply don't like what the statistics are telling them. The common refrain of someone relying on some statistics that would be which statistics? Is that a statistic on false hope? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 I think the biggest problem with guns in clubs is that it probably highly increases the chances of people getting shot when there isn't someone trying to shoot the place up. It'd be like a stereotypical wild west saloon but darker, way more crowded, more chaotic, and with more dangerous weapons. well, it's an environment that centers around drugs and alcohol. that's the biggest problem. no responsible gun owner is going to be in a club at 2 AM with their gun. it's something that's not legal in many states, and as far as I know for the few that it is legal in it would be illegal to consume alcohol (who knows, maybe it's legal and Texas and Florida, they have backasswards gun laws every time I check), and even if it was legal it would be insanely irresponsible to carry a gun while drinking. and none of that factors in the drugs... and I can't really think of many people that would like to be at a club at 2 am without partaking in the drugs and/or alcohol, but maybe I'm naive on that one. you put a bunch of drunks in a small room with guns you're liable to wind up with shootings over someone dancing with someone else 10000x more often than anyone protecting them from a mass shooter.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 You see the shooter. You have a gun. You get ready to fire. But the situation is somewhat dark (I'm assuming it being a night club there was probably normal night club lighting) and chaotic. Somebody behind you with a gun, that isn't well trained, hears the shooting looks, in the direction of the shooting, and sees you with your gun, and they shoot you in the back as you're shooting the shooter. Now certainly, I think lots of people carrying that have good training would be an ideal situation. But that's not something practically easy to achieve. I certainly agree if you openly carry or use a gun you are more likely to be shot in your example the shooter and one innocent was shot and another innocent is ready to shoot any perceived threat....is that better or worse than the result w/o a attempt(depends right?) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 no, it's true. both sides throw around statistics they don't understand. i posted this in the other thread, but it's interesting what qualifies as a mass shooting these days. it's anything with with 4 or more deaths involved. which means there's events that no person in their right mind would consider a 'mass shooting' the way we use the term, that is counted in the statistics. it's kind of like whether we include/exclude suicides in the gun violence statistics and how it changes the numbers. again, no one (without an agenda) would agree that suicides belong in a number called 'gun violence' when the context of the conversation is how dangerous it is for us because of other people with guns. statistics are routinely used to mislead, by people of all political persuasions, and it only works because the vast majority of people either don't understand statistics, or are unable/unwilling to critically think about what the statistics say/mean. it's not that statistics are bad, it's that people often use them to intentionally mislead, and too many people are unaware of it. (and because around here you apparently have to say this, else you be forced into the other extreme by some people: Yes, I believe the NRA does the exact same thing when it's convenient for them to do so) No, I pretty much agree with you. Statistics certainly can be manipulated. I was mostly just trying to give twa a hard time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 no responsible gun owner is going to be in a club at 2 AM with their gun. it's something that's not legal in many states, and as far as I know for the few that it is legal in it would be illegal to consume alcohol (who knows, maybe it's legal and Texas and Florida, they have backasswards gun laws every time I check), and even if it was legal it would be insanely irresponsible to carry a gun while drinking. and none of that factors in the drugs... In Florida, it is illegal to carry a gun on premises of a place to sells alcohol for consumption on premises. So I can carry in the liquir store. Bars are not allowed though. What sucks is I technically can't carry if I go to Applebee's for dinner (not drinking) because there is a bar in there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 In Florida, it is illegal to carry a gun on premises of a place to sells alcohol for consumption on premises. So I can carry in the liquir store. Bars are not allowed though. What sucks is I technically can't carry if I go to Applebee's for dinner (not drinking) because there is a bar in there. The biggest travesty there is that you're at Applebees for dinner. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 It was just an example. First national chain restaurant that has a bar that I could think of. I'm more of a support locally owned businesses kinda guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 There is no real doubt that good gun laws result in less gun crime, and given the current laws that having a gun in the house actually increases the chances that a family member will be killed by a gun. It is easy to believe that good gun laws will simultaneously make people that do not own guns, and the ones that do own guns actually safer. I would certainly say banning guns (w/the usual exclusions) in a club is a good law and statistically speaking reduces gun crimes in clubs......those people killed in Orlando are not just statistics...yet they are were they safer?...in general yes, in actuality no would you say someone with a gun in the house perceived a higher threat to their home/person than ones w/o? should we impose our perception on them for the greater good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) no, it's true. both sides throw around statistics they don't understand. statistics are routinely used to mislead, by people of all political persuasions, and it only works because the vast majority of people either don't understand statistics, or are unable/unwilling to critically think about what the statistics say/mean. That's true but in this case, TWA was just saying **** to dismiss something. There was no critical thinking involved. No thinking of any kind. It was a pre-cognitive reflex sort of like Spidey-sense. It's his super power. Edited June 14, 2016 by Sacks 'n' Stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 That's true but in this case, TWA was just saying **** to dismiss something. There was no critical thinking involved. No thinking of any kind. It was a pre-cognitive reflex sort of like Spidey-sense. It's his super power. I've given more thought to shootings and gun violence statistics than most of you maybe your spidey sense is off ....think about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) What, no? How does George Zimmerman not fall into the category of lunatic? Are you unaware of who George Zimmerman actually is? What does cops shooting innocent people have to do with anything? How does someone with little to no training have to do with a military vet? Could you dance around my question any more? I'll answer that for you - no. Between this and your nonsense about converting guns into automatics, I'm thoroughly disappointed with you. You're almost always much better than this. He was considered legally enough of not a lunatic to carry a gun in FL. Based on the laws of many states, any conversation about what can and will happen in an active shooter scenario has to include what Georger Zimmerman-like people will do. Discussions based on what George Zimmerman like people will do is not something being perpetrated by anybody. It is the reality of the situation. The net result is how I'd feel is irrelevant. What matters is consequences, and there is no real reason to believe that I'm more likely to get into an active shooting situation involving a responsible/competent vet where it would actually make a difference then I'll end up interacting with a George Zimmerman-like person in a gun related situation based on the laws in many states. Edited June 14, 2016 by PeterMP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Another idea: Gun dealers should have to report people who request any form of body armor. I don't even like the idea of being able to purchase it, but I concede that just my opinion. Would be nice if it at least set off a flag of some kind. With all the other flags this guy set off, it could have made a difference. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBass1724 Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 I'm all for someone having their concealed carry license and owning guns in general, but there is no argument to be made that could ever convince me that the general population should be able to access and purchase guns that fire hundreds of rounds per minute. Common sense has to kick in at some point. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) I would certainly say banning guns (w/the usual exclusions) in a club is a good law and statistically speaking reduces gun crimes in clubs......those people killed in Orlando are not just statistics...yet they are were they safer?...in general yes, in actuality no would you say someone with a gun in the house perceived a higher threat to their home/person than ones w/o? should we impose our perception on them for the greater good? I'm not for banning guns (I've already said, ideally we'd have a large population of well trained people that did carry guns). I'm for laws that encourage reasonable and responsible gun use. And for their good and the greater good, I think that mandated courses on gun training for people that carry makes a lot of sense. If you don't have proper training and are carrying a gun in public, you are putting yourself and the general public at risk. And no, I wouldn't necessarily say that. Many people keep guns for entertainment purposes. Do you think the mother of the Sandy Hook killer kept all of those guns her house because she perceived they made her safer? Or is it more likely that she liked to own and shoot guns? And it isn't just perception. They are the facts. Edited June 14, 2016 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 And it isn't just perception. They are the facts. in general Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts