See, thats the mindset that is false. People simply aren't going to get shot over $20, thats not how the rules of CCW work.... Granted there are gang shootings over likely similar amounts, but we can't expect criminals to be of the law abiding mindset, so we have to exclude that aspect when we compile statistics (see earlier post regarding the 19 shootings in Chicago). Does it happen? Sure every once in a while, but that same once in a while someone dies in a bar fight over a drink or a girl, or someone is hospitalized over a road rage incident, firearms or not. Believe it or not but the average firearms owner is law abiding and responsible, and like all groups of people there are a few that set a very poor example that makes us have to show we aren't all like that. Remember that the majority of people that would carry, already possess, so they are no more likely to begin to contribute to negative statistics than they already do
We exclude those when compiling statistics? I guess if we compile statistics based only on what we see on the news that would be true, fortunately that's not the case.
The Following User Says Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
You said two things, first that a CCW holder could have ended it, and second that "trained firearms handlers aren't immune to poor judgment/execution." So which is it? You strolled in here saying that you could have John Wayne'd the whole thing, and after getting your absurd position kicked around for a while changed your tune. So pick one.
You could have ended it immediately, right? Because you've fired shots at a moving target that just assassinated someone a block away and is now pointing the gun at you. You've worked under those conditions, right? One shot, boom. Just like in the movies.
You my friend, are completely full of it.
You, my friend, have missed the point, and clearly don't understand the language or context of those statements. Let me try again:
Yes, a CCW holder could have ended it right there. COULD have, not WOULD have. Remember, no absolutes. It has been demonstrated in the past that individuals that are CCW holders have intervened very successfully, but I'm not one of those guys who gets blinded by one side, and I KNOW that there are instances that has not been the case, hence my admission that not everyone can be spoken for and some individuals may not execute proper judgement, that can also be demonstrated. I didn't flip flop on anything, sorry about your misinterpretation and allowing me to retype this for you.
Furthermore, my position is anything but absurd. I'm curious as to the reasoning you're so passionate about this? I'm protecting my interests, do you feel unsafe around firearms? Do you get uncomfortable around police officers? Or are you one of the people that see the sensationalism in the media about demonization of firearms and decide your mind is made up without actually educating yourself? I'm truly curious
It has been demonstrated in the past that individuals that are CCW holders have intervened very successfully, but I'm not one of those guys who gets blinded by one side, and I KNOW that there are instances that has not been the case...
I'm curious where you would put a percentage on the amount of people saved by someone carrying a weapon, compared to those who have died by someone carrying a weapon?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
The Following User Says Thank You to HOOT For This Useful Post:
You, my friend, have missed the point, and clearly don't understand the language or context of those statements. Let me try again:
Yes, a CCW holder could have ended it right there. COULD have, not WOULD have. Remember, no absolutes. It has been demonstrated in the past that individuals that are CCW holders have intervened very successfully, but I'm not one of those guys who gets blinded by one side, and I KNOW that there are instances that has not been the case, hence my admission that not everyone can be spoken for and some individuals may not execute proper judgement, that can also be demonstrated. I didn't flip flop on anything, sorry about your misinterpretation and allowing me to retype this for you.
Furthermore, my position is anything but absurd. I'm curious as to the reasoning you're so passionate about this? I'm protecting my interests, do you feel unsafe around firearms? Do you get uncomfortable around police officers? Or are you one of the people that see the sensationalism in the media about demonization of firearms and decide your mind is made up without actually educating yourself? I'm truly curious
Well a lot of things could have happened. Someone could have thrown a rock from the observation deck and taken the guy out before he killed anyone. I'm not saying it WOULD have happened, but it COULD have. No absolutes.
I'm fine around firearms, actually a pretty decent shot when it comes to clay pigeons. My issue in this thread has nothing to do with my views on firearms, although I'm quite firmly in the camp of less guns (particularly those with no other purpose, not hunting rifles) in existence being a good thing, it has to do with the idiotic idea that armed citizens would have made this particular situation turn out better.
The Following User Says Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
I'm curious where you would put a percentage on the amount of people saved by someone carrying a weapon, compared to those who have died by someone carrying a weapon?
Well, that wouldn't be an entirely accurate comparison either, and a statistician would likely tell you that two groups of people with different intents strictly sharing a common tool cannot be compared directly to establish a correlation or outcomes. You simply couldn't make that comparison for any other object that could potentially kill someone.
Well a lot of things could have happened. Someone could have thrown a rock from the observation deck and taken the guy out before he killed anyone. I'm not saying it WOULD have happened, but it COULD have. No absolutes.
I'm fine around firearms, actually a pretty decent shot when it comes to clay pigeons. My issue in this thread has nothing to do with my views on firearms, although I'm quite firmly in the camp of less guns (particularly those with no other purpose, not hunting rifles) in existence being a good thing, it has to do with the idiotic idea that armed citizens would have made this particular situation turn out better.
Well, armed police officers certainly made a worse situation of it, so yah it really is a realistic potential that the outcome may have been better. The thread title should truly be 'todays mass shooting brought to you by the NYPD'
And who are you to determine that my firearms have no other purpose? Better ban javelins as well.
The attitude of "i dont need it or do it so theres no use for it" is invalid. I'm not going to nit pick your hobbies that I don't particularly enjoy
Well, armed police officers certainly made a worse situation of it, so yah it really is a realistic potential that the outcome may have been better. The thread title should truly be 'todays mass shooting brought to you by the NYPD'
And who are you to determine that my firearms have no other purpose? Better ban javelins as well.
The attitude of "i dont need it or do it so theres no use for it" is invalid. I'm not going to nit pick your hobbies that I don't particularly enjoy
What other purpose do they have then?
And yes the outcome could have been better, the shooter could have been plucked away at the last second by some sort of giant hawk that flies around fighting crime. Not saying it WOULD happen, but it COULD. No absolutes.
Btw, any idea where I can get a concealed carry permit for a javelin?
Well, that wouldn't be an entirely accurate comparison either, and a statistician would likely tell you that two groups of people with different intents strictly sharing a common tool cannot be compared directly to establish a correlation or outcomes. You simply couldn't make that comparison for any other object that could potentially kill someone.
I would rather you ignore my post than blow smoke up my butt!
It is a really easy question that no pro-gun person will ever answer because they know it won't have a good outcome.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
Last edited by HOOT; 08-29-2012 at 04:53 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to HOOT For This Useful Post:
I would rather you ignore my post than blow smoke up my butt!
It is a really easy question that no pro-gun person will ever answer because they know it won't have a good outcome.
Not really. It just wouldn't be accurate. Better known as misleading. I do think you're completely ignoring the fact that trained officers turned this into a major f up. Not a citizen shooter.
The 23-year-old man left a Pathmark in Old Bridge Township around 3:30 a.m. and returned a half-hour later with a handgun and an AK-47 assault rifle, Middlesex County Prosecutor Bruce Kaplan said.
There were 12 to 14 people in the store at the time, Kaplan said. The man fired the rifle at the first workers he saw, killing an 18-year-old woman and a 24-year-old man as other workers hid, Kaplan said. At least 16 rounds were fired, some breaking the front windows.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
Not really. It just wouldn't be accurate. Better known as misleading. I do think you're completely ignoring the fact that trained officers turned this into a major f up. Not a citizen shooter.
And you continue to pretend that the presence of a citizen shooter would have helped things.
Nothing makes a shootout safer for bystanders than adding more guns to the equation!!!
Your quote doesn't state that he was a Marine that was in a war. This isn't a gun issue it's a mental health issue. Sounds like a love triangle.
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
