let's just cut to the chase, Gun Fanbois.....

[woodchip]

(somewhere along the way, one would think that the concept of needing a second shooter to counteract the first one is beyond fecked up)

I guess if it was your kid being shot at, you would of told the defender to put his pistol away and wait for the cops to arrive...speak about fecked up.

no, I would realize that BOTH of them are fecked up and so was my society that I live in.

And that saves your childs life how?

[Lothar]

Have no fear, the end of the run is coming, and likely sooner than you suspect.

A few posts ago, you talked about "sensible" reforms. But then you make statements like this that sound much more broad-brush. Is there a reason to take such an ominous tone if all you're really after is sensible reforms?

[callmeslick]

it was sort of hilarious today to watch the sheep fan out and report this Cincy shooting 'heroics' story. I was sort of doing a mental countdown, waiting to see how long before Woody brought it up here(as always, I wasn't disappointed). Meanwhile, once again the REAL takehome message is that we've allowed modern, 2015 America to be less under control than Dodge City, Tombstone and about 15 other 'Wild West' towns that didn't tolerate firearms around civilization. I guess the concept of 'civil society' has been given up upon. It's bad business for gun manufacturers, being civil. And thus, the NRA has to keep the lemmings on high alert, telling all the world about how you need a gun or three to keep the scary world away. Like I say, hilarious.......were it not so sad. As I read someplace recently, after Sandy Hook, the takehome message is that the US can accept the murders of 5 year olds. Once you've done that, what are are few more bodies in the streets every day?

[callmeslick]

Have no fear, the end of the run is coming, and likely sooner than you suspect.

A few posts ago, you talked about "sensible" reforms. But then you make statements like this that sound much more broad-brush. Is there a reason to take such an ominous tone if all you're really after is sensible reforms?

what I've always been about is sensible reforms, pushed by sensible gun owners. The more I read stuff like the story Woody, and the rest of rootin-tootin gun totin' fanboys have been floating all day, the more I realize that it's likely just going to be a case of American democracy in (slow motion) action. Eventually, the majority will be so disgusted that, yes, you will see wholesale bans on the sale, possession and transfer of firearms. Yes, you will see a nation revisit the 2nd Amendment, because the people most likely to preserve it got railroaded by an organization dedicated merely to gun sellers, into thinking their concerns mirrored the average citizen's concerns. It won't be tomorrow, but I'm starting to suspect it will happen, and it will happen sooner than some people can grasp.

[woodchip]

Was that as hilarious as you posting about the Sandy Hook tragedy and chortling what it would do for gun control...all the while with not one word of remorse about the victims in your fevered lust to get the incident on our board?

[Top Gun]

At least I would be shooting at the aggressor and not innocent people.

How the hell would you have any idea what you were shooting at in a darkened theater surrounded by dozens of panicking individuals? You'd be far more likely to hit one of them than the single shooter. Protip: you are not Rambo, nor will you ever be, nor will any average schmuck who owns a gun.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Let's think about that, TopGun. I expect the situation would be in the favor of the concealed carrier for a few reasons.

1: Muzzle flash... shoot the bastard behind it.
2: The crowd will be fleeing the shooter, so the movement of the crown would naturally act as a secondary indicator.
3: Get low, aim high. Unfortunately there may be people up and running, but as mentioned they will most likely be running away from the original source of gunfire--the shooter, or cowering behind chairs. Get low, watch the crowd, and aim for the bastard behind the muzzle flash.

Even if you have to wait for an opportunity, I would say the odds are very much in favor of that opportunity arriving before the police do, and more lives saved than risked, and bear in mind that every concealed carry permit holder is keenly aware of the potential for collateral damage. This isn't a skeet shoot we're talking about, where we need to think about the safety implications of doing it in a crowded room. This is life or death. Every shot this guy takes where no one returns fire is with the intention of killing an innocent bystander, so let that put return fire by concealed carriers in perspective, considering the severity of the situation.

[Ferno]

At least I would be shooting at the aggressor and not innocent people.

How the hell would you have any idea what you were shooting at in a darkened theater surrounded by dozens of panicking individuals? You'd be far more likely to hit one of them than the single shooter. Protip: you are not Rambo, nor will you ever be, nor will any average schmuck who owns a gun.

A lot of gun owners don't understand the effects that adrenaline and an uncontrollable situation have on a persons' aim, or even their situational awareness. They're more likely to hit a target blindfolded at a shooting range than a chaotic situation.

[Spidey]

Meanwhile, once again the REAL takehome message is that we've allowed modern, 2015 America to be less under control than Dodge City, Tombstone and about 15 other 'Wild West' towns that didn't tolerate firearms around civilization?

So I'm curious, How many of those gun free towns revoked those laws after being over run a few times by armed gangs?

Since you seem to have access to figures.

Maybe none, but I'm just curious.

.................................

TG...We are talking about people who carry…not “average schmuck who owns a gun”

Ferno...Sheesh, we did this before, fight or flight can sharpen your senses just as likely as turn you into a bag of nerves, it all depends on the person and how much training, experience they have…etc. (remember we are not talking about “a lot gun owners” we are talking about a much smaller subset)

Of course I believe anyone that carries should have training, but that doesn’t insure anything.

[callmeslick]

Meanwhile, once again the REAL takehome message is that we've allowed modern, 2015 America to be less under control than Dodge City, Tombstone and about 15 other 'Wild West' towns that didn't tolerate firearms around civilization?

So I'm curious, How many of those gun free towns revoked those laws after being over run a few times by armed gangs?

I don't have access to figures, at the moment.....my reading of history indicates that to men and women of the time, there was enough decency and civility to understand that while firearms were needed out on the prairies or in the mountains, they had no place in a town full of settlers and their families. You see, they were trying to build CIVILIZATION in places where wilderness had been, and the first step to civilization is public safety(or at least one of the first steps).

[callmeslick]

Spidey, a short read, and I know this is no substitute for an actually book or set of books........yes, I'm aware of and not wowed by the little digs the author makes at modern conservatives within the piece, but there are links and such to read further. Also, one gem in there which speaks to your question: Dodge City, after incorporation, made gun control the FIRST law on the books, which sort of dismisses the theory that such laws were a reaction to events.



edit-oops, forgot the link--http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/24/gun ... est-48208/

[Top Gun]

1: Muzzle flash... shoot the bastard behind it.
2: The crowd will be fleeing the shooter, so the movement of the crown would naturally act as a secondary indicator.
3: Get low, aim high. Unfortunately there may be people up and running, but as mentioned they will most likely be running away from the original source of gunfire--the shooter, or cowering behind chairs. Get low, watch the crowd, and aim for the bastard behind the muzzle flash.

1. Oh, you mean the muzzle flash that would completely destroy your night vision in a darkened room? And that's assuming it isn't already shot to hell by the movie itself.
2. The crowd will be running every which way they can, because they probably don't even know where the hell the shooter is in the darkened room. That includes right into your face and across your line of fire. Seriously, have you ever seen a big crowd of people running from an emergency situation? There's no rhyme or reason in where they're going. It's pure fight-or-flight, and they're flying any which way they can.
3. Again, this only works if you have a clear idea of where the shooter is, which you most likely don't at first. And again, you're just as likely to hit someone running across your path as you are the shooter. I can guarantee you that even the most trained law enforcement professionals would tell you that dealing with a shooter in this sort of environment is about the most nightmarish scenario possible.

TG...We are talking about people who carry…not “average schmuck who owns a gun”

No, we're talking about "average schmucks who carry." The ONLY people I'd trust in that sort of situation are trained SWAT members or military personnel, and even then I'd be surprised if there wasn't any collateral damage. I don't trust your average Bubba packing heat as far as I can throw his overweight ass.

[callmeslick]

kinda like this, TG?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ?tid=sm_fb

[Tunnelcat]

Then you have these 2 examples of women successfully defending themselves from rapists and robbers. In the second link, the woman may have put a serial killer permanently out of commission, although she didn't know it at the time.

http://www.examiner.com/article/texas-w ... red-by-msm

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/us/woman- ... index.html

[Spidey]

Lol slick, that video should insult anybody’s intelligence…pro or con.

[callmeslick]

Then you have these 2 examples of women successfully defending themselves from rapists and robbers. In the second link, the woman may have put a serial killer permanently out of commission, although she didn't know it at the time.

http://www.examiner.com/article/texas-w ... red-by-msm

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/us/woman- ... index.html

but, that was in her own home, wasn't it, TC? Heck, we just had some story in the paper about fending some rapist off with a pool cue. Likely as effective at short range as anything.

[woodchip]

Then you have these 2 examples of women successfully defending themselves from rapists and robbers. In the second link, the woman may have put a serial killer permanently out of commission, although she didn't know it at the time.

http://www.examiner.com/article/texas-w ... red-by-msm

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/us/woman- ... index.html

but, that was in her own home, wasn't it, TC? Heck, we just had some story in the paper about fending some rapist off with a pool cue. Likely as effective at short range as anything.

I understand pool cue's might be a tad hard to fit in ones purse.

[callmeslick]

not a 4-piece

[Sergeant Thorne]

*removed by Thorne in recognition of the breach of DBB protocol, and to avoid derailing the topic* [Thank you.] There's an idiot at my work that would probably like to back-and-forth with you based on what I overheard the other day about whether Superman or Batman has the most moral authority. I would shoot the guy. It wouldn't be easy, it wouldn't be safe, it might not be quick, but by God it would be the end of it.

By the time someone is in a movie theater is shooting civilians it's absurd to start acting like we can pretty up the scenario or throw our hands up and call it hopeless (guess we should have listened to slick and given up our first-class citizen status). It's not ideal, but it ain't hopeless, and you're better off with a means of retaliation than without one.

Here's one for you--I would be EDCing a min 300 lumen flashlight that would strobe the SOB before I squeeze the trigger. ...That's Batman for the win. (Superman doesn't need the flashlight, and Batman's strobe is a lot brighter than muzzle flash which for my money isn't intense enough or prolonged enough to kill your low-light--not no light--vision).

[callmeslick]

There's an idiot at my work that would probably like to back-and-forth with you based on what I overheard the other day about whether Superman or Batman has the most moral authority. I would shoot the guy. It wouldn't be easy, it wouldn't be safe, it might not be quick, but by God it would be the end of it.

By the time someone is in a movie theater is shooting civilians it's absurd to start acting like we can pretty up the scenario or throw our hands up and call it hopeless (guess we should have listened to slick and given up our first-class citizen status). It's not ideal, but it ain't hopeless, and you're better off with a means of retaliation than without one.

Here's one for you--I would be EDCing a min 300 lumen flashlight that would strobe the SOB before I squeeze the trigger. ...That's Batman for the win. (Superman doesn't need the flashlight, and Batman's strobe is a lot brighter than muzzle flash which for my money isn't intense enough or prolonged enough to kill your low-light--not no light--vision).

the rest of this is pure gibberish, mixed in with a bit of self-delusion, aggrandisment and out and out horseshit. But, the bit I highlighted in red is worth comment. What is it that denotes 'first class citizen status'? Your gun? How pathetic, but,[removed]

[Sergeant Thorne]

4 hours of sleep and a lot of things wearing on my patience. Haven't resorted to alcohol yet.

Yes. A gun is the ultimate proof of not being in a lower class--not being subservient. Civilians should be able to own and use just about everything our government has it its disposal. IMO civilians buying surplus military is also a very good sign.

Your use of the old west as an example was a poor one. There is one thing, in my mind, that typifies the old west, and that is that law was not recognized by those that made it the wild west. This is the big difference between modern, prevalent concealed carry and the old west, and the two cannot truly be likened.

[Ferno]

we did this before, fight or flight can sharpen your senses just as likely as turn you into a bag of nerves, it all depends on the person and how much training, experience they have…etc. (remember we are not talking about “a lot gun owners” we are talking about a much smaller subset)

Of course I believe anyone that carries should have training, but that doesn’t insure anything.

I'm happy that you remember.

the only person here who has actual training and experience is woodchip. I'd defer to him first on matters of dealing with a shooter. The rest of us would be liable to get shot if we didn't get out of the room as fast as possible.

What say you, woodchip? What is the best way to deal with an aggressor in an enclosed public space like a movie theater?

[Lothar]

Backing up a few posts:

after Sandy Hook, the takehome message is that the US can accept the murders of 5 year olds

to the contrary, the take-home message is that we acknowledge the presence of people who will do bad things like murder 5 year olds using the tools they have available. And while it's worthwhile to focus on prevention and early detection, it's not a cure-all. Every so often, somebody with bad intentions is going to act on those intentions, with the advantage of planning and preparation.

And when that happens, I would prefer for those around to be able to respond with adequate stopping power. Whether a psycho pulls a gun or a knife or is just hopped up on meth and trying to tear peoples' heads off with his bare hands, I'd prefer if nearby survivors of the first strike can shoot back so he doesn't get a second or third or fourth strike.

Sure, it doesn't always work that way. Sometimes the guy's first strike takes out the only other person in the room with a gun. Sometimes the other people with guns don't have a clear shot. Sometimes they can't be sure who is friend or foe. Sometimes the guy blows up the whole damn building with a truck full of fertilizer. But sometimes it does work that way -- sometimes someone with ill intent starts shooting or stabbing or swinging, but he doesn't manage to kill anyone because somebody else with a gun takes him down. And I'd rather live in a society where such a "first responder" can already be on scene because he's an ordinary citizen, than live in a society where the police are 5 minutes away and the guy's already stabbed 19 people to death.

Now, we can definitely do better than the current situation. There's still a lot to be said for required background checks, better enforcement of existing gun laws, requirements for safer storage, and tactical training for those who choose to carry -- methods to disarm people before they snap instead of after, and to help people who might become "first responders" to be effective at ending rampages. But I'm not sold on "disarm the populace" as a solution; that doesn't so much end mass killings as it shifts the balance of power toward the most strong and athletic among us.

[Tunnelcat]

Then you have these 2 examples of women successfully defending themselves from rapists and robbers. In the second link, the woman may have put a serial killer permanently out of commission, although she didn't know it at the time.

http://www.examiner.com/article/texas-w ... red-by-msm

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/us/woman- ... index.html

but, that was in her own home, wasn't it, TC? Heck, we just had some story in the paper about fending some rapist off with a pool cue. Likely as effective at short range as anything.

The woman in the second link did good slick. She fought against her attacker so hard that he dropped his gun. She then proceeded to grab that gun and shoot the bastard, dead. She did every prostitute, and maybe every single woman, a big favor, because it seems the guy may have been a serial killer of sex workers all over the country. The creep even rented a room from a woman living in Eugene. She's counting her lucky stars I'll bet.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... l_fal.html

[vision]

Yes. A gun is the ultimate proof of not being in a lower class--not being subservient.

This is too ridiculous to grace with a counterargument.

Civilians should be able to own and use just about everything our government has it its disposal.

How about nerve gas and bunker-busters? Why is your arbitrary line better than mine?

There is one thing, in my mind, that typifies the old west, and that is that law was not recognized by those that made it the wild west.

Learn history.

[vision]

double post

[woodchip]

But I'm not sold on "disarm the populace" as a solution; that doesn't so much end mass killings as it shifts the balance of power toward the most strong and athletic among us.

An absurd statement with no possible way to prove it.

Tell that to the elderly who shoot the people breaking into their home. Would you like me to link reports verifying such?

[Tunnelcat]

Tell that to the elderly who shoot the people breaking into their home. Would you like me to link reports verifying such?

Precisely why I own a gun and learned how to use it and maintain it.

[vision]

But I'm not sold on "disarm the populace" as a solution; that doesn't so much end mass killings as it shifts the balance of power toward the most strong and athletic among us.

An absurd statement with no possible way to prove it.

Tell that to the elderly who shoot the people breaking into their home. Would you like me to link reports verifying such?

Woody, that has nothing to do with the statement Lothar made.

[Lothar]

But I'm not sold on "disarm the populace" as a solution; that doesn't so much end mass killings as it shifts the balance of power toward the most strong and athletic among us.

An absurd statement with no possible way to prove it.

Tell that to the elderly who shoot the people breaking into their home. Would you like me to link reports verifying such?

Woody, that has nothing to do with the statement Lothar made.

Yes it does, quite directly. When people are disarmed, that means the strong and athletic can impose their will on others. When an old lady has a gun, she can more effectively resist a much larger and fitter young man.

[vision]

Yes it does, quite directly.

No, it does not. This is your claim:

But I'm not sold on "disarm the populace" as a solution; that doesn't so much end mass killings as it shifts the balance of power toward the most strong and athletic among us.

This is 100% speculation and Woody's contribution does nothing to prove your point. Please, try to prove it. Show me where disarming the populace did as you claim and I'll show you proof of the opposite.

[Ferno]

When an old lady has a gun, she can more effectively resist a much larger and fitter young man.

she can also do that with a baseball bat... or even a broom.

[Lothar]

But I'm not sold on "disarm the populace" as a solution; that doesn't so much end mass killings as it shifts the balance of power toward the most strong and athletic among us.

This is 100% speculation and Woody's contribution does nothing to prove your point

Two things:

1) my point has two parts. Woody's comment is directly relevant to the second half, regarding the balance of power. (No, brooms and baseball bats are not as effective at leveling the playing field. An old lady with a gun and training stands a much better chance of defending herself than an old lady with a mop.)

2) the "proof" in your link is laughably wrong. Wikipedia lists a mass shooting in Australia in 2002 and another in 2011 -- after the gun ban! (There's also the Lindt Cafe in Sydney in 2014, where a gunman took 18 hostages -- but only ended up shooting one of them, with a second dying in the crossfire with police, so technically not a mass shooting.) So "we have never had another mass shooting" is a BALD-FACED LIE that you didn't even bother to research.

But also note that I didn't say "mass shootings", I said "mass killings", and Australia has also had 3 mass murders by melee weapons (hammer, knife, bat) and 3 by fire in the same time period. That's 8 mass killings in the ~20 years since the gun ban. There were 8 mass killings in the ~20 years leading up to the gun ban. The mass killings continue at the same pace, it's just that the weapons of choice have changed.

**drops mic**

[Ferno]

so what, the ban is ineffective because it didn't eliminate ALL mass murders? it's ineffective because the death count isn't zero?

something tells me people in Australia are glad (in a morbid way) that it was only three instead of... 35.

[Lothar]

so what, the ban is ineffective because it didn't eliminate ALL mass murders? it's ineffective because the death count isn't zero?

vision offered the ban as proof that you can end mass killings that way. The fact is that mass killings happened at the same frequency in the 20 years before as the 20 years after.

Even adding up the death tolls, the 8 "prior" mass killings led to 80 total dead (with 35 from a single killing and 45 from the other 7), while the 8 "after" mass killings led to 56 to 67 dead (the Quakers Hill nursing home fire has only an estimated death toll.) Go ahead and use your favorite statistical methodology on those numbers; what you'll find is that the data doesn't prove a statistically significant difference in expected number of deaths per event (the Port Arthur massacre is a statistical outlier; the other events cluster around 7 fatalities each), nor in the frequency of events. The gun ban didn't end mass killings, nor make them particularly less deadly.

If you want to offer a country as "proof" of a gun ban working to prevent mass killings, you need a statistically sound case. Australia pre- and post-1996 doesn't provide it. (Offering it as proof is kind of like saying "since we haven't had another 9/11 size event, the TSA must be doing a great job!" No, just because we didn't get a repeat of the biggest outlier in history in the last 20 years doesn't mean we've actually fixed the problem or even made progress.)

[callmeslick]

the exchanges above illustrate the empty intellectualism seen in this debate. A method, proven to greatly reduce a negative outcome(in this case murders) is somehow dismissed because it doesn't ABSOLUTELY solve the problem. You cannot debate with that kind of logic (or lack thereof) at work.

[woodchip]

the exchanges above illustrate the empty intellectualism seen in this debate. A method, proven to greatly reduce a negative outcome(in this case murders) is somehow dismissed because it doesn't ABSOLUTELY solve the problem. You cannot debate with that kind of logic (or lack thereof) at work.

The only empty intellectualism is your politically motivated desire to ban firearms. As I pointed out before, in the 50's and 60's guns were even more easily obtained yet we didn't have the mass murders with guns that we do now. We did have Richard Speck who mass killed a bunch of nurses but he used a knife. Where your hype falls short is it fails to address why people want to commit the mass killings. True intellectualism would address the "why" and not the means. As Lothar correctly points out, take away the gun and other means will be found to mass kill people. So, sorry slick, you once again fail to address the real problem and try to inject political agendas into the discussion.

[callmeslick]

The only empty intellectualism is your politically motivated desire to ban firearms.

first off, I've been begging for gun fanbois to step up, man up and work together with the other 60% of the populace to enact sensible laws, so that no one gets anything banned outright. Second, what earthly 'political' motivation is there? As for the rest of your drivel above, I am quite aware that SOCIETY has changed, hence the need to address that via gun laws among other things. All I've stated is that ignoring the easy access to guns is shallow, stupid and dangerous.

[vision]

Yeah I don't see how wanting to ban guns is inherently political. Inherently smart yes, but not political, unless you mean that a pro-gun political stance is stupid, which I agree.

Here is the thing all you gun people need to get used to: The US will eventually have massive, sweeping gun bans. This is the world trend, and just like slavery, we have the worst and longest standing problem with it, but we will catch up to the rest of civilization. Our society is changing and so is the role of guns. "Take my gun out of my cold, dead hands" you say? Yes, you will probably be dead when it happens, but it will happen, and the world will be better off without you and your gun.

[woodchip]

I guess vision you missed the assault weapon ban we had a few years back...and then was repealed. Don't hold your breath waiting for another ban.