Gawker: Gun Rights Groups to Hold Fake Mass Shooting at UT This Weekend

[Larry]

Not what I said. You've become terrible at reading.

So, the purpose of you asking whether he has "expertise in active shooting situations" was . . . ?

[mistertim]

So you would be fine with them carrying if they had urban combat training?

I'm not saying only people with urban combat training should be allowed to carry guns. I'm just saying that I think people need to be more realistic about human responses to extremely high stress life or death situations like that. Its easy "on paper" to talk about what a person would or should do, but the reality is gonna be quite a bit different.

[tshile]

So, the purpose of you asking whether he has "expertise in active shooting situations" was . . . ?

He's making a sweeping statement about how people would react, and when I pointed out that it's an often repeated statement by certain people he demanded to know why it's wrong.

I think asking what he actually knows about the situations he's making such statements about is reasonable.

Why is that so hard for you to follow?

I don't have any expertise, but im also not repeating partisan rhetoric about it.

Now a question for you: why do you spend so much time intentionally misrepresenting other people's posts? You've done it to me twice this week already. As much time as you spend policing others' posts I'd expect better?

[mistertim]

Yes, people being partisan is quite an issue for us right now. As are people pretending to be experts on every subject.

It's important to call them out.

It happens to me too. You should try to be more graceful about it.

Unless you have expertise in active shooting situations? I mean I don't actually know you, maybe you actually know what you're talking about?

Not pretending to be an expert on active shooting situations. Or an expert on anything. This is just basic simple human psychology and physiology. You've been in situations where you panic and can probably hardly even remember what you did or why; where you may have done something illogical because you weren't thinking straight due to adrenaline and panic flooding your system. I've been in them too. And nothing either of us have been in probably compares to an active shooter situation. So take what you and I have experienced and probably multiply it by 5 and try to imagine how level headed you'd be.

 

Does that apply to "all" people? Probably not. There are some people who may just have a natural ability to stay calm no matter what. But would it apply to "most" people? I'd certainly bet on it.

[tshile]

Not pretending to be an expert on active shooting situations.

So the answer is you don't actually know. You also just so happen to be repeating something often repeated by people of a certain political persuasion. Do you understand my criticism now?

By the way, police cheifs, sheriff's, and other law enforcement are trying to spread the word that in these situations folks can no longer follow the traditional advice of not getting involved or waiting for the police.

The PC of liberal and anti gun DC went on 60 minutes and did an entire segment on it.

You know more about it than them?

I'm sure the passengers on United Airlines flight 93 didn't have hand to hand combat training or pilot lessons. I believe we still don't know how many lives those brave people saved.

[twa]

I'm not saying only people with urban combat training should be allowed to carry guns. I'm just saying that I think people need to be more realistic about human responses to extremely high stress life or death situations like that. Its easy "on paper" to talk about what a person would or should do, but the reality is gonna be quite a bit different.

 

But my point is even capable ,trained and experienced people are forbidden to carry on campus

[Bang]

And Jade Helm springs it's trap.

 

Suckers.

Run before you all disappear under a Wal Mart.

 

~Bang

 

.. i mean

~Fake Bang

[mistertim]

So the answer is you don't actually know. You also just so happen to be repeating something often repeated by people of a certain political persuasion. Do you understand my criticism now?

By the way, police cheifs, sheriff's, and other law enforcement are trying to spread the word that in these situations folks can no longer follow the traditional advice of not getting involved or waiting for the police.

The PC of liberal and anti gun DC went on 60 minutes and did an entire segment on it.

You know more about it than them?

I'm sure the passengers on United Airlines flight 93 didn't have hand to hand combat training or pilot lessons. I believe we still don't know how many lives those brave people saved.

So if you happen to say something that was also said by someone of a certain political persuasion, but you were reasoning it out and explaining why it made sense to you, you would automatically become a partisan hack and we could simply dismiss your opinion?

 

Are you saying you disagree with what I said about human psychology and the response to sudden and incredibly stressful situations? You keep hanging on to the "active shooter" situation. But I'm just talking about human responses whether its a shooter situation, car accident, whatever. You seem to be clinging to that as a way to keep labeling me as saying it as a partisan thing.

But my point is even capable ,trained and experienced people are forbidden to carry on campus

True, but that's sort of a different discussion

[Redskins Diehard]

Admiring this (apparently new) position that only people with "expertise in active shooting situations" are permitted to post in this thread.

Just curious, can you clear the hurdle that you are now trying to retroactively claim you were trying to put, in front of him?

Nah, people with expertise in nothing at all are allowed to post wherever they want. That much is obvious here

[twa]

 

True, but that's sort of a different discussion

 

But we keep restrictions and then question why they are not stopped by civilians more.

 

The shooters are choosing the killing fields we set up.

[Redskins Diehard]

Not pretending to be an expert on active shooting situations. Or an expert on anything. This is just basic simple human psychology and physiology. You've been in situations where you panic and can probably hardly even remember what you did or why; where you may have done something illogical because you weren't thinking straight due to adrenaline and panic flooding your system. I've been in them too. And nothing either of us have been in probably compares to an active shooter situation. So take what you and I have experienced and probably multiply it by 5 and try to imagine how level headed you'd .

There are lots of people who go to "the sounds of the guns" and plenty of people who don't. I have no idea what the breakdown is. But there are people who actually would attempt to eliminate the threat and not try to hide from it. Whether or not that's a good thing is a whole different conversation

[tshile]

So if you happen to say something that was also said by someone of a certain political persuasion, but you were reasoning it out and explaining why it made sense to you, you would automatically become a partisan hack and we could simply dismiss your opinion?

 

Are you saying you disagree with what I said about human psychology and the response to sudden and incredibly stressful situations? You keep hanging on to the "active shooter" situation. But I'm just talking about human responses whether its a shooter situation, car accident, whatever. You seem to be clinging to that as a way to keep labeling me as saying it as a partisan thing.

 

I do not disagree with you in regards to the psychology stuff. There's a reason I said my desired response would be the get the hell out of there. I have no idea how well I would do confronting an attacker in a situation like that, whether I had a gun or not. I'm not really interested in finding out either.

 

I disagree with your mockery of the idea and the ease with which you dismiss the ability of someone to make a difference in a situation like that.

 

You weren't out to make a logical argument, you were out to score political high fives with people that think like you. We see this sort of sentiment everywhere. All through the media, social media/forums, etc. You're repeating it. I'm not really making an absurd accusation here.

 

You dove into the psychology stuff after i called you on it. None of which have I tried to challenge you on, because despite me not being an expert on that what you said makes perfect sense.

 

You guys get away with this crap here because very few people who aren't right up your alley politically bother to post in these threads anymore. But that doesn't make it correct or informed. It's general statements about something you'd admitted you have zero actual knowledge or experience about.

 

The bottom line is you're on here mocking the idea that people would potentially help while the police chiefs and sheriffs around the country are starting to publicly ask people to stop being passive actors in these incidents.

 

That's what makes it partisan bull****.

 

I do it too, and will unfortunately do it again in the future. It's the nature of discussion politics on the internet.

 

It doesn't make you stupid, ignorant, or anything other than someone passonate about an idea that argues about it on the internet (some would say that makes you stupid i'm sure ). I'm not trying to personally attack you. Just the idea you posted. 

[mistertim]

And you seem absolutely incapable of seeing anything except through a lense of "this person is being partisan". My talking about what would likely happen to a person in an active shooter situation had nothing to do with my political background or philosophy. What I was mocking was the people who go on and on about how they'd do this or that and perpetuating the Rambo mythos when the reality of the situation would probably be quite a bit different when the bullets are actually flying (literally in this case). The entire thing was grounded in the psychological and physiological response to incredibly stressful situations that humans experience. It always was, which is why I brought the whole thing up in the first place. I didn't go more in-depth until you came in claiming that I was being purely ideological.

 

Yes, its possible a person could make a positive difference in that situation (especially if you could get very close to the shooter). Its also quite possible they could make things worse. Its certainly possible that in their likely shaky and panicked state they could hit bystanders...you've shot before so you know how little it takes to send a bullet wildly off course, even from pretty close range. What happens when the cops show up and there are two people shooting? Who do they go after?

 

Again, my mockery wasn't necessarily the thought that a person could potentially do some good. It was directed at the internet Rambos and the people who sloganeer about "all it takes is a good guy with a gun" as if it is that simple.

[Gamebreaker]

 

I also like how all you just assume the only option, if you do have a gun, is to be more likely to shoot innocent people. I imagine if you were shooting at the attacker there wouldn't be a whole lot of innocent people near him (I guess we have to start including her now too?), they'll probably all be running away by then.

 

 

I do agree with this, because I've seen that from personal experience, being an innocent bystander at a shooting in DC during a go-go concert for Howard University. The free concert was in the process of being shut down by police due to it being overcrowded. As the band, I think it may have been Rare Essence, announced the cancellation on stage, a man to my left near the ground level in the crowd pulled out a pistol and shot 3 times into the air. I knew this is what happened, because I was completely frozen to my spot about 30 yards away from him, and I watched him shoot the second and third shots before quickly ducking into the crowd and pretending to run away like everyone else. The speed by which the innocent bystanders broke in every direction from him reminded me of a rock being tossed into a lake and watching the ripple. 

 

If this was a shooter intent on killing, and not just some asshole pissed because the concert was cancelled, there was a great chance that someone legally carrying a gun could've easily taken him out without hitting bystanders. If I had a CCW on me, I would've had a clear line of sight to bring him down, unfortunately he would've had the same for me. I know not all shootings are like this one, and a pistol isn't as dangerous as a semi-automatic weapon, but I have a hard time believing I could've missed him and hit a bystander when within a second the spot he pulled the trigger from was completely cleared of bystanders.  

[Redskins Diehard]

And you seem absolutely incapable of seeing anything except through a lense of "this person is being partisan". My talking about what would likely happen to a person in an active shooter situati

Yes, its possible a person could make a positive difference in that situation (especially if you could get very close to the shooter). Its also quite possible they could make things worse. Its certainly possible that in their likely shaky and panicked state they could hit bystanders...you've shot before so you know how little it takes to send a bullet wildly off course, even from pretty close range. What happens when the cops show up and there are two people shooting? Who do they go after?

Again, my mockery wasn't necessarily the thought that a person could potentially do some good. It was directed at the internet Rambos and the people who sloganeer about "all it takes is a good guy with a gun" as if it is that simple.

Doesn't the concept of greater good change the question from "would john q. Rambo hit innocent people?" To "would john q. Rambo hit less people than joe murderer would have otherwise? "

I think you underestimate the number of people who would get involved rightly or wrongly in one of these situations. The world is actually full of people who agent self absorbed or pussies. Don't we believe that people are inherently good? And want good in the world?

I know not all shootings are like this one, and a pistol isn't as dangerous as a semi-automatic weapon

A pistol typically IS a semi automatic weapon. Words matter

[Alaskins]

Don't we already have a gun control/NRA thread?

 

And before you flame me, look at my handle.  I've been hunting all my life including Bear, Moose, Ptarmigan, etc.

[Elessar78]

 

If you do not have sense enough to know not to shoot near bystanders ya should not be armed.

What do you imagine the "good guy with gun stops bad guy with gun" crowd have in mind when it comes to mass shootings/terrorism?

 

"Clear out! I got this."

[twa]

most I would assume would try to get out of the line of fire....tis human nature

[Larry]

Now a question for you: why do you spend so much time intentionally misrepresenting other people's posts?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

[MartinC]

Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

Larry, thats uncalled for. There are certain lines that you or anyone else don't cross in these discussions whether here in Tailgate or in the Stadium. Please everyone take this as a general warning to keep to the topic and keep the conversation respectful. 

[Burgold]

air. I knew this is what happened, because I was completely frozen to my spot about 30 yards away from him, and I watched him shoot the second and third shots before quickly ducking into the crowd and pretending to run away like everyone else. The speed by which the innocent bystanders broke in every direction from him reminded me of a rock being tossed into a lake and watching the ripple.

If this was a shooter intent on killing, and not just some asshole pissed because the concert was cancelled, there was a great chance that someone legally carrying a gun could've easily taken him out without hitting bystanders. If I had a CCW on me, I would've had a clear line of sight to bring him down, unfortunately he would've had the same for me. I know not all shootings are like this one, and a pistol isn't as dangerous as a semi-automatic weapon, but I have a hard time believing I could've missed him and hit a bystander when within a second the spot he pulled the trigger from was completely cleared of bysstanders

See, I have a total logic problem with this. You say someone shot three times and your instinct was to freeze. You became momentarily paralyzed and then everyone including you scattered in all directions trying to get to safety.

All that seems reasonable, but what you wrote after doesn't follow. You believe if you had a gun on you and the shooter had murderous intent you wouldn't have frozen and that a lane would have magically opened up for you... Or that you would have waited for a 30 foot clean corridor to open up to take him out.

I don't buy it. I believe you'd like to imagine this is what you'd do or how it'd play out, but you told us how you reacted and what kind of chaos you were in.

Maybe you'd have hit the shooter, probably that open lane doesn't open up and god forbid you add to the body count or the police already there see you taking out your gun, aim it, and take you out.

At any rate, the problem I have with these scenarios is they are fantasies. We've seen trained marines fall in these situations.

It'd be great if there was a Hawkeye or Lone Ranger there who with a single shot could disarm the bad guy, but there's a reason it never happens outside a Hollywood script.

[China]

Woman who shot at shoplifters vows to 'never help anybody again' after conviction

 

Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez thought she was doing the right thing when she pulled out her pistol and fired at a pair of shoplifters as they fled from a Home Depot near Detroit.

 

She wasn't, at least in the eyes of the law.

 

On Wednesday, a Michigan judge sentenced Duva-Rodriguez to 18 months of probation and stripped the 46-year-old of her concealed gun permit.

 

Duva-Rodriguez didn't manage to stop the shoplifters when she rattled off several rounds outside an Auburn Hills Home Depot on Oct. 6, although she did flatten one of their tires.

 

What she did do, however, was spark a nationwide debate — or at least add fuel to an already raging fire.

 

The shooting came just days after a massacre at a community college in Oregon, an event that led GOP presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ben Carson to call for "more guns" to help fight crime.

 

But Duva-Rodriguez's attempt at being a good Samaritan badly backfired.

 

She was widely pilloried for pulling out her firearm when nothing but property was at stake. Gun experts slammed her, saying she was lucky not to have killed a bystander. Prosecutors called her decision to fire her weapon in a busy parking lot "disturbing" and charged Duva-Rodriguez with misdemeanor reckless use of a handgun.

 

Duva-Rodriguez did not contest the charge in court, but she was hardly contrite.

 

"I tried to help," she told WJBK after her sentencing on Wednesday, before wryly adding: "And I learned my lesson that I will never help anybody again."

 

Her lawyer was even more defiant.

 

"We need more people like Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez in our society," defense attorney Steven Lyle Schwartz told The Associated Press.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Elessar78]

Earn your fee, Steven Lyle Schwartz. Earn you fee.

[mistertim]

See, I have a total logic problem with this. You say someone shot three times and your instinct was to freeze. You became momentarily paralyzed and then everyone including you scattered in all directions trying to get to safety.

All that seems reasonable, but what you wrote after doesn't follow. You believe if you had a gun on you and the shooter had murderous intent you wouldn't have frozen and that a lane would have magically opened up for you... Or that you would have waited for a 30 foot clean corridor to open up to take him out.

I don't buy it. I believe you'd like to imagine this is what you'd do or how it'd play out, but you told us how you reacted and what kind of chaos you were in.

Maybe you'd have hit the shooter, probably that open lane doesn't open up and god forbid you add to the body count or the police already there see you taking out your gun, aim it, and take you out.

At any rate, the problem I have with these scenarios is they are fantasies. We've seen trained marines fall in these situations.

It'd be great if there was a Hawkeye or Lone Ranger there who with a single shot could disarm the bad guy, but there's a reason it never happens outside a Hollywood script.

Stop being partisan, Burgold. And if you aren't an expert on active shooter situations, you clearly don't know what you're talking about and you are simply being an ideologue.

 

/tshile

 

 

[tshile]

Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez thought she was doing the right thing when she pulled out her pistol and fired at a pair of shoplifters as they fled from a Home Depot near Detroit.

 

Well, there's the problem. She's an idiot.

"We need more people like Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez in our society," defense attorney Steven Lyle Schwartz told The Associated Press.

Oh god, apparently the lawyer is even dumber than her.