The following is not a 15 second clip out of context
It Only Took This Army Vet 3 Minutes To Destroy Obama's Gun Control Plan
It Only Took This Army Vet 3 Minutes To Destroy Obama's Gun Control Plan
The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Naw, my reality is so much better than that of most people. There is no lack of friends, south in the winter, summer in the most beautiful place in the world, and inspite of the normal potholes a most agreeable life. I just don't want what I have earned over my life to end by a gun that made it into the wrong hands.
Every single day, there are so many losing their chances at the life of their choosing because of a firearm in the wrong hands. Civilization is not a society that is either at war, or preparing for one especially within it's own domain. Civilized society is about mutually agreed goals/laws that benefit as many members as possible.
of course! Who could rationally argue with background checks... why, even member Colpy supports them... but only in Canada, eh!
I stand to be corrected: my understanding is that, in the U.S., since 1993, any gun sale through a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer, must include a background check of the intended buyer. I also understand that a "certain number of U.S. States" have extended upon that federal licensing caveat to require background checks for all gun sales. A somewhat dated stat I've read indicates the FBI performed ~100 million purchase background checks between 1993 and 2009... while blocking ~2 million gun purchase attempts due to the intended purchaser being ineligible. Of course, that simply leaves the ineligible person the background check loophole avenue to freely purchase a gun through a private sale (e.g. the "Gun Show loophole"). And why would anyone have a concern over a "gun show" background check to deny an ineligible person a gun purchase avenue? Anyone, anyone, anyone...
It takes more than background checks, it is about making sure the weapons are securely locked up between animal hunting trips. It is about waiting til a person is able to understand death is permanent. .Children's brains do not achieve empathy or develop enough to envision the results of their actions until their 20's sometimes.. To put a weapon in the hands of those who have no concept of death or the results of a shooting on a family or persons is in my view criminal.
Canada is Canada is because the welfare of the majority trumps the right of one individual to carry a concealed weapon without very stringent conditions. I am sure the 3 year old who shot mum in the Walmart store may bury memory of the event but hardly in the memories of his/her siblings who were present. One stupid law changed many lives in many separate incidences over the years. The US law makers are trying to fix the law but one of the most evil organizations in my opinion, is doing everything in it's power to block decent gun control laws. They believe their rights to feel in charge trumps those of a majority who want to live without fear.
Canada is Canada is because the welfare of the majority trumps the right of one individual to carry a concealed weapon without very stringent conditions. I am sure the 3 year old who shot mum in the Walmart store may bury memory of the event but hardly in the memories of his/her siblings who were present. One stupid law changed many lives in many separate incidences over the years. The US law makers are trying to fix the law but one of the most evil organizations in my opinion, is doing everything in it's power to block decent gun control laws. They believe their rights to feel in charge trumps those of a majority who want to live without fear.
yup! Showcasing a hypocritical position on background checks (vis-a-vis Canada versus the U.S.)... that sure was a thread killer, hey Colpy! :mrgreen:
clearly... just not enough "good guys with guns"! American mass shooting casualty analysis (62 mass shooting events over the last 30 years)... "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. And in other recent (but less lethal) rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, those civilians not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public places, including bars, parks, and schools."
clearly... just not enough "good guys with guns"! American mass shooting casualty analysis (62 mass shooting events over the last 30 years)... "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. And in other recent (but less lethal) rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, those civilians not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public places, including bars, parks, and schools."
yup! Showcasing a hypocritical position on background checks (vis-a-vis Canada versus the U.S.)... that sure was a thread killer, hey Colpy! :mrgreen:
clearly... just not enough "good guys with guns"! American mass shooting casualty analysis (62 mass shooting events over the last 30 years)... "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. And in other recent (but less lethal) rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, those civilians not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public places, including bars, parks, and schools."
Just the places named:
2012
Obviously, Sandy Hook was a "gun free" zone.
At Aurora, the shooter drove by no less than six theatres showing the Batman film.........to start shooting in the ONLY one that did not allow concealed firearms.
2007
Guess what? Virginia Tech is also a "gun-free" zone, and the shooting there inspired a Campus Carry movement to allow licensed students to carry their guns on campus.
1999
That would be because Columbine is a "gun free" zone.........and the officer that fired a couple of shots at the perpetrators failed to follow up and pursue them into the building, as he was trained to wait for back-up. That training has changed.
So there you have it.
Every major shooting you listed took place in an area where people were prevented by law from carrying guns. In other words, every single one of the mass shootings took place in an area of perfect gun controls....no guns allowed, period.
Which demonstrates very well who benefits from gun control.........and it ain't the good guys.
That is exactly what I am saying.
Gov'ts do not grant, and can not remove rights....they simply are. They are inherent, and gov'ts can merely recognize or fail to recognize them..
Those that actually fought for rights understand this. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 did not "grant" the right to keep arms, it recognized its existence as an "ancient right".
Do you know the Supreme Court's rationale for saying there is no Canadian right to keep arms?
Look it up.
See if it makes you proud. Seriously.
They were wrong, obviously wrong to anyone that can read.
The NRA (and member Colpy parroted) Myth of Gun-Free Zones: Data shows the gun lobby's chief argument for more firearms in schools, malls, and beyond is just plain wrong.
The argument claims to explain both the motive behind mass shootings and how they play out. The killers deliberately choose sites where firearms are forbidden, gun-rights advocates say, and because there are no weapons, no "good guy with a gun" will be on hand to stop the crime.
With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data. Not only is there zero evidence to support them, our in-depth investigation of America's mass shootings indicates they are just plain wrong.
Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues. Last September, when a troubled man working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008.
Or consider the 12 school shootings we documented, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck. FBI investigators learned from one witness, for example, that the mass shooter in Newtown had long been fixated on Sandy Hook Elementary School, which he'd once attended.
Or take the man who opened fire in suburban Milwaukee last August: Are we to believe that a white supremacist targeted the Sikh temple there not because it was filled with members of a religious minority he despised, but because it was a place that allegedly* banned firearms?
(Guns were in fact legal at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, contrary to a false report from Fox News. Wisconsin state law allows firearms to be carried in houses of worship unless explicitly barred on the premises; Amardeep Kaleka, whose father founded the temple and was killed during the attack, confirmed to me that there was no such ban in place then)
Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop"). These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.
No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way. Veteran FBI, ATF, and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. Law enforcement agents train rigorously for stopping active shooters, they say, a task that requires extraordinary skills honed under acute duress. In cases in Washington and Texas in 2005, would-be heroes who tried to take action with licensed firearms were gravely wounded and killed. In the Tucson mass shooting in 2011, an armed citizen admitted to coming within a split second of gunning down the wrong person—one of the bystanders who'd helped tackle and subdue the actual killer.
With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data. Not only is there zero evidence to support them, our in-depth investigation of America's mass shootings indicates they are just plain wrong.
Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues. Last September, when a troubled man working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008.
Or consider the 12 school shootings we documented, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck. FBI investigators learned from one witness, for example, that the mass shooter in Newtown had long been fixated on Sandy Hook Elementary School, which he'd once attended.
Or take the man who opened fire in suburban Milwaukee last August: Are we to believe that a white supremacist targeted the Sikh temple there not because it was filled with members of a religious minority he despised, but because it was a place that allegedly* banned firearms?
(Guns were in fact legal at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, contrary to a false report from Fox News. Wisconsin state law allows firearms to be carried in houses of worship unless explicitly barred on the premises; Amardeep Kaleka, whose father founded the temple and was killed during the attack, confirmed to me that there was no such ban in place then)
Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop"). These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.
No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way. Veteran FBI, ATF, and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. Law enforcement agents train rigorously for stopping active shooters, they say, a task that requires extraordinary skills honed under acute duress. In cases in Washington and Texas in 2005, would-be heroes who tried to take action with licensed firearms were gravely wounded and killed. In the Tucson mass shooting in 2011, an armed citizen admitted to coming within a split second of gunning down the wrong person—one of the bystanders who'd helped tackle and subdue the actual killer.
oh my Colpy! You're saying the Supreme Court judges can't read? That's the best you've got? Say it ain't so... say you're not contesting that, unless overridden or otherwise made ineffective by government, the Supreme Court of Canada decisions are binding upon all lower courts of Canada. Say it ain't so, Colpy!
Here is some examples of the "myth".
'Mystery Man' Tops 10 Mass Shootings Prevented By Gun Owners | CNS News
Numerous school massacres stopped by gun owners who wielded their weapons in defense of children - NaturalNews.com
Bearing ArmsYes, concealed carriers have stopped mass shootings - Bearing Arms
Armed Bystander Stops Mass Shooting at Portland Strip Club – Where is the Mainstream Media?
https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/125726-2013-01-04-mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.htm
And the list you originally posted still shows only mass killings at "gun free" zones.
And this;
"Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns."
is simply untrue, as I pointed out, the Aurora theatre shooter drove by 6 theatres that allowed guns to get to the one that did not.....
And this:
"No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way."
is simply idiotic. If the mass shooting had been stopped by an armed citizen, it wouldn't be a mass shooting, would it?
And I love this:
"Veteran FBI, ATF, and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. Law enforcement agents train rigorously for stopping active shooters, they say, a task that requires extraordinary skills honed under acute duress."
First of all, LEO are not that well trained...........secondly, how could resisting an armed shooter determined to kill as many as possible be "very likely to make matters worse". Completely ridiculous.
gun free zone? Then why did the guy where 'body armour'? How many of these "gun free zones" simply rely upon signage... are there metal detectors... was there a metal detector at the theatre in question?
in any case it's not difficult to find an author challenging this/your Fox News schlock!
Recently released court documents indicate that Holmes visited the Century 16 on June 29th, three weeks prior to his attack. Police found photos of theater 9 on his cell phone, including photos of the easily accessible rear door, its lock, and its hinges.
It’s commonly asserted that James Holmes choose the only posted “gun free” theater in a 20-mile radius, bypassing targets both closer and larger.
In reality, Holmes bypassed the Cinema Latino de Aurora, a small complex dedicated to serving the area’s Hispanic audience. It shows Spanish movies, and English movies with subtitles. Holmes, needless to say, was not Hispanic.
Holmes also ignored the Harkins, the largest theater in the area, due to the lack of privacy it would have provided. The Harkins is located in the middle of an open-air mall, with restaurants, shops, and bars to all sides.
Which leaves the Cinemark Century 16, 3.6 miles away, and the closest “megaplex” to his apartment. It was known. it was secluded. It was perfect.
It’s commonly asserted that James Holmes choose the only posted “gun free” theater in a 20-mile radius, bypassing targets both closer and larger.
In reality, Holmes bypassed the Cinema Latino de Aurora, a small complex dedicated to serving the area’s Hispanic audience. It shows Spanish movies, and English movies with subtitles. Holmes, needless to say, was not Hispanic.
Holmes also ignored the Harkins, the largest theater in the area, due to the lack of privacy it would have provided. The Harkins is located in the middle of an open-air mall, with restaurants, shops, and bars to all sides.
Which leaves the Cinemark Century 16, 3.6 miles away, and the closest “megaplex” to his apartment. It was known. it was secluded. It was perfect.
yup... reeediculous! 9 bystanders hit... and these guys were trained :mrgreen:
If waldo came pounding on my door hoping for assistance, I'd side with the criminals he is fleeing from.
such a significant contribution as yours clearly warrants being quoted! Do you actually have anything to add to the thread OP/subject at hand... or is this all you can manage?
just questions? The guy wore body armour to a declared "gun free zone"... Colpy's assertion is that there can be NO guns there... so why the armour? What you quoted was "BIZARRE"... was a "RANT"? Really?
you're simply here to do what you do! Shyte on threads and disturb... it's what you do, it's what you're about - nothing more, nothing less!
You think NYC police are well-trained? LOL!!!
Stop it.......
First of all, to most police officers, their guns are simply another bit of kit...........something they have to carry, not something they are willing to spend time and energy developing a high level of skill. Not so for a gun enthusiast willing to take the time to get an CCW...
Anecdotal....before I went to the training dept at the armoured car service where I worked, they offered "free days" at the range. No pay, just show up and shoot, do a little "advanced" skill development, company supplies the gun and ammo. Know who showed? Me, that's it, nobody else, and I was easily the most skilled shooter there (not hard)
Secondly, the NYPD is absolutely notorious for poor shooting.
Third, the NYPD and other dep'ts are often issues DAO semi auto pistols with horrendous trigger pulls in a misguided attempt to ensure safety by making it hard to fire the service weapon....a cheaper solution than actually training the officers. DAO semi-auto handguns are incredibly hard to learn to shoot well.........and therefore the misses.........
Civilian enthusiasts carry whatever they like, and shoot well with........
In the majority of cases, I would rather be backed up by a civilian gun enthusiast rather than a police officer.
Good question I do not know.
You just can't stop insulting, can you?
It is one of your less attractive psychotic traits.
but... but... but... they're "good guys with guns"! I look forward to you providing unbiased summary assessment that JoeGunNutz receives more/better firearms training than American law enforcement. I appreciate you think you and your militia buddies are representative of the "collective body of gun proponents", but uhhh.... :mrgreen:
so you were an armoured car quard... not even a Mall Cop!!! I kid Colpy... I kid!
says YOU... the KingOfInsultsHere. But uhhh... is it attractive ON YOU? And yet another guy with an internet medical degree... well done Colpy!
Quard> What's a quard? I kid.
Yeah, I've had a bunch of careers, everything from farm hand, through longshoreman, to power engineer, to history researcher, to high school history teacher, to armed guard........a bunch.
I was not only a guard, i was also the local firearms trainer. We used the old New York Police system, so I know what I speak of in that regard. At the time, we used S&W revolvers, DAO, but with a smooth, progressively lightening trigger pull.........much easier to learn than the typical DAO semi-auto, which stacks as the trigger is pulled.
It is not a good system of training, although we qualified twice a year, which is double the police requirement.
And we used the outdoor police range, in conjunction with the police training officer. Oh yeah, I've seen cops shoot. Oops. Really not good..