that 'good guy with a gun' scenario.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:33 am

....as we've tried to point out, has some very serious consequences:
http://www.click2houston.com/news/man-c ... n/35510922

as if being carjacked wasn't bad enough......not only shot in the head, but this loon is opening fire at a GASOLINE station.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:12 am

Another story that doesn’t really reflect upon law abiding gun owners.

(yes, despite the castle laws, I'm pretty sure reckless endangerment is still illegal even in Texas)

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 2:46 pm

Problem is, there are many instances of people who have successfully stopped carjackers using their guns without hitting any innocent bystanders. As long as there are successes, the mistakes will be counted as aberrations that make carrying a gun for self-protection worth the risk. 2 examples, one captured on video:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/03/co ... -thing-by/

[youtube]SAvx8dc7hs0[/youtube]

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 3:05 pm

He tried to do the right thing and an accident happened. More often than not, it a conceal carry permit holder that uses good judgement and who knows their limits can do good.

[date] Title (state)

[2015/09/21] Customer shoots bank robber Warren, (MI)

[2015/09/14] Store owner flashes 'best friend' to foil Lehigh Acres (FL) robbery

[2015/09/03] (DETROIT, MI) 50 year old resident defends himself and others from two armed robbers

[2015/08/26] Northeast Oklahoma City (OK) church pastor shoots at burglar

[2015/08/23] Suspects claim Dunkin Donuts robbery "just a joke" after clerk pulls out gun (Lewiston, ME)

[2015/08/21] Man With Concealed-Carry License Shoots Would-Be Robber, Police Say (Chicago, IL)

[2015/08/18] Yakima (WA) homeowner catches 3 prowlers in 2 incidents

[2015/08/17] Customer Fights Off Robber Inside Deli, Shot Fired

I could go on into July.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 3:24 pm

an 'accident happened'?? Did you seriously just write that? He shot into someone else's vehicle. Did the victim ask for his help? He fired a weapon in a GASOLINE FREAKING STATION, for crying out loud! That isn't an accident, it is complete idiocy, with utterly ZERO excuse. He should be in jail now for risking a catastrophic explosion and assault with a deadly weapon or at the very least for reckless endangerment of others. This sort of 'apology' for reckless stupidity, Isaac, is exactly why many of your fellow citizens(a growing majority) are uneasy with just sitting back and expecting gun supporters to be responsible. If you call this incident a mere accident, you don't know the first thing about personal responsibility. Why should I trust your judgement about use of weapons, ever?

My whole point in posting this article is to note that while examples can(as seen in this thread) be found of folks playing 'hero', there are and will be other examples of things going quite badly. In the interest of public safety, we shouldn't be rolling the dice with armed citizenry intervening.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 3:40 pm

callmeslick wrote:Why should I trust your judgement about use of weapons, ever?

My whole point in posting this article is to note that while examples can(as seen in this thread) be found of folks playing 'hero', there are and will be other examples of things going quite badly. In the interest of public safety, we shouldn't be rolling the dice with armed citizenry intervening.

Why should any of us trust your judgment about gun regulations when your idea of risk assessment seems to be "I have a negative example and can make a vague reference to chance"?

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:40 pm

This isn't Hollywood slick, gas stations don't explode because of gunshots.

Mythbusters even tried to deliberately explode a propane cylinder with a gun once. The 9 MM handgun didn't even puncture the tank, the shotgun slug and 30-06 failed to ignite the propane even when they used multiple shots from tracer rounds, the only way they were actually able to ignite the tank by shooting it with a gun was by using an m134 and incendiary rounds. And last time I checked, it was pretty much impossible to conceal carry around a 2.6 foot long 85 pound Gatling gun with an equally huge belt of illegal incendiary rounds.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:51 pm

Lothar wrote:
callmeslick wrote:Why should I trust your judgement about use of weapons, ever?

My whole point in posting this article is to note that while examples can(as seen in this thread) be found of folks playing 'hero', there are and will be other examples of things going quite badly. In the interest of public safety, we shouldn't be rolling the dice with armed citizenry intervening.
Why should any of us trust your judgment about gun regulations when your idea of risk assessment seems to be "I have a negative example and can make a vague reference to chance"?

you don't feel that public use of firearms by civilians doesn't deserve risk assessment? Nowhere did I suggest that this one negative example is the be all and end all, but merely a counter to the fantasy-world proposal that would there be more civilians with guns loose in society, we'd be safer.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:52 pm

Krom wrote:This isn't Hollywood slick, gas stations don't explode because of gunshots.

really? Sparks from static set off two stations last winter around here. Care to test your theory by standing near the pumps while someone fires a few rounds in that general direction. Another example of denial?

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 5:04 pm

If you're trying to say that any person with a gun is capable of making a bad choice, we all agree. Is that the point of this thread?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 5:30 pm

Isaac wrote:If you're trying to say that any person with a gun is capable of making a bad choice, we all agree. Is that the point of this thread?

yes, essentially.....with the following corollaries:
1. the more people loose with weapons, the chance of bad 'choice' escalates, and probably not even in a linear fashion.
2. the argument that more guns lead to greater public safety is highly questionable at all
3. the ability to predict who will be able to operate a weapon responsibily is sketchy at best, so mandatory training and certification should be
a component of any responsible gun lawmaking.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 5:45 pm

callmeslick wrote:Nowhere did I suggest that this one negative example is the be all and end all, but merely a counter to the fantasy-world proposal that would there be more civilians with guns loose in society, we'd be safer.

Have you ever heard a real person suggest that more civilians with guns would make everyone, everywhere, in every circumstance safer? Or are you using a cherry-picked story in order to try to counterbalance a position nobody actually holds?

Unless you actually are living in a fantasy world, "real people" who are pro-gun acknowledge that sometimes people do stupid things, and more guns means more incidents in which someone does a stupid thing with a gun. But we also counter-balance that with the knowledge that more guns also means more incidents in which someone chooses not to do something stupid because of the deterrence factor of knowing someone else might have a gun, or someone actually failing to pull off a violent crime because they have a gun pointed at them or even fired at them. Anybody credible who talks about gun control from either side should be talking about multiple tradeoffs -- changes in crimes committed with guns, changes in deterrence of other types of crimes, and accidents (note that my brief look at Australia's crime statistics never got a serious response, or even an acknowledgement that the data implies a tradeoff between gun crimes and other types of crimes.)

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 5:49 pm

Lothar wrote:
callmeslick wrote:Nowhere did I suggest that this one negative example is the be all and end all, but merely a counter to the fantasy-world proposal that would there be more civilians with guns loose in society, we'd be safer.
Have you ever heard a real person suggest that more civilians with guns would make everyone, everywhere, in every circumstance safer? Or are you using a cherry-picked story in order to try to counterbalance a position nobody actually holds?

Wayne LaPierre has said that exact thing, repeatedly.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 6:08 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Lothar wrote:
callmeslick wrote:Nowhere did I suggest that this one negative example is the be all and end all, but merely a counter to the fantasy-world proposal that would there be more civilians with guns loose in society, we'd be safer.
Have you ever heard a real person suggest that more civilians with guns would make everyone, everywhere, in every circumstance safer? Or are you using a cherry-picked story in order to try to counterbalance a position nobody actually holds?
Wayne LaPierre has said that exact thing, repeatedly.

Got any actual quotes?

I have a hard time believing someone who supports a national mental health registry to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill would say more guns would make everyone, everywhere, in every circumstance safer. Perhaps "exact" isn't what you meant, but instead "something that could be twisted and straw-manned into looking like that"?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 6:26 pm

will try tomorrow to dig for quotes, but it was to the effect that 'in most places, even schools, churches and restaurants, having more armed citizens present increases public safety'. No he didn't suggest giving everyone a gun, no matter criminal or mental health issues, but that isn't the case in my example. There is nothing I've heard that suggests that our 'hero' in this tale was in any way mentally compromised('not too bright' is not the same thing).
Enough for tonight, it's off to put the grandkids to bed and watch a bit of football........

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:39 pm

callmeslick wrote:really? Sparks from static set off two stations last winter around here. Care to test your theory by standing near the pumps while someone fires a few rounds in that general direction. Another example of denial?

I'd be much more concerned with the flying bullets than any potential risk of the station exploding. I simply found your comments about "shooting at a GASOLINE FREAKING STATION" with a tone as if it had potentially universe ending explosive consequences somewhat insulting to everyone's intelligence.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:05 pm

I was thinking more along the lines of multiple people crowded around a small area. Two, three employees in the store, a few customers inside, about two more filling their tanks, a good amount of people walking along the sidewalks and the drivers going past.

much higher likelihood of being tagged by a random bullet than a gas station blowing sky high.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:28 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Krom wrote:This isn't Hollywood slick, gas stations don't explode because of gunshots.
really? Sparks from static set off two stations last winter around here. Care to test your theory by standing near the pumps while someone fires a few rounds in that general direction. Another example of denial?

The static electricity created on a person getting out of their car mixed with the fumes coming out of the open filler neck the creates the perfect stiociametric ratio to set off an explosion. That's why people should touch the metal body of their car away from the filler opening first to discharge the static charge, then insert the noozle into the filler port. At least that's what I did when I lived in a state that allowed me to pump my own gas. Oregon is so henky about people filling up their own vehicles that it's not legal to pump your own gas here.

Mythbusters couldn't even set off a car's mostly empty gas tank shooting it with all types of rounds. The only rounds that caused an explosion were incendiaries and even those were hit or miss.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 5:29 am

Krom wrote:
callmeslick wrote:really? Sparks from static set off two stations last winter around here. Care to test your theory by standing near the pumps while someone fires a few rounds in that general direction. Another example of denial?
I'd be much more concerned with the flying bullets than any potential risk of the station exploding. I simply found your comments about "shooting at a GASOLINE FREAKING STATION" with a tone as if it had potentially universe ending explosive consequences somewhat insulting to everyone's intelligence.

hardly universe ending, but completely irresponsible.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 5:40 am

callmeslick wrote:
Isaac wrote:If you're trying to say that any person with a gun is capable of making a bad choice, we all agree. Is that the point of this thread?
yes, essentially.....with the following corollaries:
1. the more people loose with weapons, the chance of bad 'choice' escalates, and probably not even in a linear fashion.
2. the argument that more guns lead to greater public safety is highly questionable at all

And yet where are you least safe? Try gun free zones. I felt safer when I was shooting in a 50 man league than when I dropped my daughter off at school.

callmeslick wrote:3. the ability to predict who will be able to operate a weapon responsibily is sketchy at best, so mandatory training and certification should be
a component of any responsible gun lawmaking.

To legally carry here in MI mandatory training and certification is required. Your point?

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:11 am

Slick, be honest. If the only gun crimes committed were by those not in gangs, we wouldn't have enough reason to even have gun laws.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:30 am

callmeslick wrote:it was to the effect that 'in most places, even schools, churches and restaurants, having more armed citizens present increases public safety'

This is actually drastically different from "everyone everywhere in every circumstance".

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:16 pm

Not good. Another crazy young gunman kills 13 students and wounds 20 inside a building at Umpqua Community College in Roseberg, Oregon.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mul ... ge-n437051

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:30 pm

Isaac wrote:Slick, be honest. If the only gun crimes committed were by those not in gangs, we wouldn't have enough reason to even have gun laws.

feel free to explain that to anyone from Oregon, today.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:29 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Isaac wrote:Slick, be honest. If the only gun crimes committed were by those not in gangs, we wouldn't have enough reason to even have gun laws.
feel free to explain that to anyone from Oregon, today.

Yeah, gang violence makes up most of the gun related homicides. The solutions for gang violence isn't the same as the solution for mass shooters. Gangs will go away with an education overhaul. Mass shootings are unpredictable and can't be prevented unless you have armed security on campus.

The Oregon campus did not have armed security. Oregon does allow campus carry, but the school policy, according to a teacher they just interviewed, does not permit guns on campus.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:30 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Not good. Another crazy young gunman kills 13 students and wounds 20 inside a building at Umpqua Community College in Roseberg, Oregon.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mul ... ge-n437051

How many good guys with guns were there to shoot back?

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:43 pm

Lothar wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:Not good. Another crazy young gunman kills 13 students and wounds 20 inside a building at Umpqua Community College in Roseberg, Oregon.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mul ... ge-n437051
How many good guys with guns were there to shoot back?

That's the problem. Many people who can carry don't. There needs to be a movement that encourages people to carry every day if they an carry. People with clean records should be encouraged to become educated and carry for their own community.

Right now, too many people think guns are for tough guys that want to take the law into their own hand. The law is designed to allow the use of lethal force.

Hey, can we split this thread for the Oregon shooting?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:45 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Isaac wrote:Slick, be honest. If the only gun crimes committed were by those not in gangs, we wouldn't have enough reason to even have gun laws.
feel free to explain that to anyone from Oregon, today.

Feel free to explain how well gun free zones work.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:48 pm

woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:
Isaac wrote:Slick, be honest. If the only gun crimes committed were by those not in gangs, we wouldn't have enough reason to even have gun laws.
feel free to explain that to anyone from Oregon, today.
Feel free to explain how well gun free zones work.

Just to back you up, wood,

Even though campus carry is legal in Oregon a teacher from the school just said in an interview that guns are not permitted on campus.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:33 pm

keep talking the BS about 'gun-free zones' being part of the problem and see how well you like the whole nation becoming one.

Interesting aside, while EVERY major news outlet save one covered both Obama's address, and the school President's presser, Fox News felt the most compelling issue to be Hillary Clinton's electability. Hmmmmmm, see no evil, etc?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:53 pm

callmeslick wrote:keep talking the BS about 'gun-free zones' being part of the problem and see how well you like the whole nation becoming one.

Never happening.

Gun-free zones are part of the problem. That's not BS; it's plain and simple truth. If guns were the problem, we'd hear about a lot more mass shootings at gun stores and gun ranges. But instead they're in gun-free zones where there are no guns. Hmmmm.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:00 pm

Lothar, the above is one of the absolute few truly idiotic statements I've heard from you. Why no mass shootings at ranges or stores? Because people aren't angry at the store that sold them the weapon(nor the range). The problem is that people are able to develop(for whatever reason, with whatever clarity) goofy ideas of shooting people, and then EASILY obtain the weapons to do so. That is the ENTIRE dynamic behind mass shootings insofar as gun law goes. NO, having other armed people around wouldn't change that, nor likely even lower the death toll(see OP for how other armed people can potentially harm more innocent people). NO, easing carry laws won't affect that. All you are doing is serving up the clearly bogus smokescreen that gun sellers want you to console yourselves with. Less and less Americans are buying into it, and, as I said, eventually, folks like you making BS excuses will leave you on the sidelines when the political gravitas to do something happens and you'll wake up to what even I'd find to be EXTREME restrictions.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:31 pm

callmeslick wrote:. . .

The denial is strong with this one.

Probably wouldn't get why "gun free zones" are a bad idea in this society even if someone shot his ass in one.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:57 pm

callmeslick wrote:Lothar, the above is one of the absolute few truly idiotic statements I've heard from you. Why no mass shootings at ranges or stores? Because people aren't angry at the store that sold them the weapon(nor the range). The problem is that people are able to develop(for whatever reason, with whatever clarity) goofy ideas of shooting people, and then EASILY obtain the weapons to do so. That is the ENTIRE dynamic behind mass shootings insofar as gun law goes. NO, having other armed people around wouldn't change that, nor likely even lower the death toll(see OP for how other armed people can potentially harm more innocent people). NO, easing carry laws won't affect that. All you are doing is serving up the clearly bogus smokescreen that gun sellers want you to console yourselves with. Less and less Americans are buying into it, and, as I said, eventually, folks like you making BS excuses will leave you on the sidelines when the political gravitas to do something happens and you'll wake up to what even I'd find to be EXTREME restrictions.

Keep pandering this horse pucky. The drivel you keep espousing is is the usual liberal smoke screen to steer us away from their failed philosophy. Your OP is easily countered by hundreds of cases where having a gun saved the day. Of course you only want to focus on a lone case where someone screwed up. What you should be concerned about is someday a federal law will be passed that licensed to carry people will be able to carry anywhere and gun free zones are banned. Maybe then the nut jobs will be dissuaded from opening fire.

vision · Post by **vision** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 6:58 pm

Isaac wrote:Right now, too many people think guns are for tough guys that want to take the law into their own hand.

Well duh, that's basically been my experience too. I hardly ever see people with a rational, emotionally clear head talk about how great guns are.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 7:00 pm

You know guys, all this rampant back and forth is pointless until there's been some information about the shooter, how he obtained his gun or what were his motives. All the news outlets here do is spout nothing but a constant rehash of old information and sad personal stories.

Yes, it's legal to carry on college campuses in Oregon, but each individual campus can have it's own rules and as such, UCC had decided to not allow guns on campus. Nor was campus security armed either. I'm willing to bet that policy will change.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:09 pm

vision wrote:
Isaac wrote:Right now, too many people think guns are for tough guys that want to take the law into their own hand.
Well duh, that's basically been my experience too. I hardly ever see people with a rational, emotionally clear head talk about how great guns are.

Imagine if you carried a gun as a civilian, for a moment. Indulge me. You'd learn the laws, buy the right holster and gun for your body for daily carry, and you'd stay clear of confrontation like you already do. You'd probably never use it in any way, other than practice. You'd sacrifice comfort and have new problems to deal with in order to carry. Because you'll probably never use it, it might seem like a waste of time and money. But imagine if more good people like you did carry. Imagine if everyone assumed everyone was armed. These mass shootings would stop.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:43 pm

The common thread with mass shootings is that they don't happen where there are good guys with guns. Sometimes shootings happen, but they don't reach "mass" stage because good guys shoot back and that changes the dynamic from a slaughter to a battle that becomes a standoff and eventually a surrender or the use of overwhelming force. Yes, sometimes good guys with guns miss their target -- but a lot of times they hit the bad guy and nobody else, or even just scare the bad guy into surrender. On balance, good guys with guns are a net positive.

slick keeps repeating that "less and less Americans" buy into this logic. Among my own friends, a lot of people who never thought about guns 10 years ago carry now. Pew also shows more people "for gun rights" and fewer "for gun control" as a long-term trend, with a tiny reversal of that trend in the last year but within margin of error -- and a lot of the overall gains are coming from independents (up from 38% in 1993 to 51% in 2015.) You can see similar trends from gallup. Every poll I've been able to find that shows long-term trends shows less support for gun bans (but VERY high support for background checks -- like over 90% from virtually every group, including Republicans.)

To put it bluntly: Americans are sick of people getting shot, they want background checks and mental health evaluations and fewer guns in the hands of criminals, but they don't view signs that say "gun free zone" as a good approach, and they don't view blanket bans as a good approach. The long-term trend is against gun bans and toward better background checks.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:08 am

Lothar wrote:To put it bluntly: Americans are sick of people getting shot, they want background checks and mental health evaluations and fewer guns in the hands of criminals, but they don't view signs that say "gun free zone" as a good approach, and they don't view blanket bans as a good approach. The long-term trend is against gun bans and toward better background checks.

right, and what you fail to add is that most Americans are equally sick of the folks IGNORING background checks, mental health evals and the rest and pointing to 'gun free zones', all the while having a Congress that rejects passing background check law, rejects mental health evaluation, and even rejects STUDY of the issue(let that last one sink in, please). Remember, the majority of the US citizenry doesn't own guns, and despite Issac's suggestion that more of us carry them, WE DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN SUCH A PLACE. Thus, my commentary that if those of you in the pro-gun camp don't wish to see downright severe legislation get passed some day, you all better be the LOUDEST voices demanding strict background checks, waiting periods, mandatory mental health checks, and restrictions on magazines and other technology which makes mass shootings easier. If not, don't whine when the 60% of the populace that doesn't own a gun, nor wishes to, exercises their political clout and makes the regs for you.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:34 am

callmeslick wrote:
right, and what you fail to add is that most Americans are equally sick of the folks IGNORING background checks, mental health evals and the rest and pointing to 'gun free zones', all the while having a Congress that rejects passing background check law, rejects mental health evaluation, and even rejects STUDY of the issue(let that last one sink in, please). Remember, the majority of the US citizenry doesn't own guns, and despite Issac's suggestion that more of us carry them, WE DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN SUCH A PLACE. Thus, my commentary that if those of you in the pro-gun camp don't wish to see downright severe legislation get passed some day, you all better be the LOUDEST voices demanding strict background checks, waiting periods, mandatory mental health checks, and restrictions on magazines and other technology which makes mass shootings easier. If not, don't whine when the 60% of the populace that doesn't own a gun, nor wishes to, exercises their political clout and makes the regs for you.

Slick, why don't you link some polls showing people are sick of ignoring background checks and want mental health evaluations. Last I heard about mental health exams is people were more afraid of the slippery slope of making the exams mandatory in one arena and then have them spill over into others. As to your 60%, they are not stupid and can see how well your gun free zone laws work.