Active shooter at Washington Navy Yard (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

It just seems as if 5 Digit and people like him are going to absurd lengths to argue that more guns in the hands of private citizens make us more safe. It's not enough for them to push a libertarian-based, "leave us alone to do what we want so long as we don't harm others" argument in favor of gun ownership- THAT argument is very compelling, actually. But they can't leave it there; they have to push forward this absurd idea that increased gun ownership is actually a positive and leads to more safety. (And of course, they also express a paranoid terror of governmental dictatorship as a primary reason for private gun ownership, over and above the issue of personal security.)

 

[KCitons]

I honestly have no idea which side people are arguing in this thread.

I'm firmly in the middle.

I don't think we should force people to arm themselves. But, by the same standards, we shouldn't force people to un-arm themselves either. In the case of a gun free zone, this is essentially what they are doing.

Why do people own guns, or carry guns in the first place? To protect their life and property. When put in a place where guns are not allowed, are we to assume that the location is secured to the point that we no longer need to protect our own life or property any longer.

Again, I didn't expect the civilian secretary to pull out a gun and disarm Aaron Alexis. But, there are probably people that were hurt and families of people that were killed that are probably wondering why there weren't more guns on the premise to limit the number of shots fired.

As far as the shotgun the guy used. A 12 gauge pump shotgun could be broke down into enough pieces, that it could be brought in unnoticed over the course of a few days. The barrel and the stock would be the only two things that may be obvious. Even then it may have been a pistol grip stock that could be hidden in a gym bag or backpack and wouldn't throw off any metal detectors.

 

[jon_mx]

When my daughter was born, the first thing I did was give her a handgun.

 

[Eephus]

I honestly have no idea which side people are arguing in this thread.

I'm firmly in the middle.

I don't think we should force people to arm themselves. But, by the same standards, we shouldn't force people to un-arm themselves either. In the case of a gun free zone, this is essentially what they are doing.

Why do people own guns, or carry guns in the first place? To protect their life and property. When put in a place where guns are not allowed, are we to assume that the location is secured to the point that we no longer need to protect our own life or property any longer.

Again, I didn't expect the civilian secretary to pull out a gun and disarm Aaron Alexis. But, there are probably people that were hurt and families of people that were killed that are probably wondering why there weren't more guns on the premise to limit the number of shots fired.

As far as the shotgun the guy used. A 12 gauge pump shotgun could be broke down into enough pieces, that it could be brought in unnoticed over the course of a few days. The barrel and the stock would be the only two things that may be obvious. Even then it may have been a pistol grip stock that could be hidden in a gym bag or backpack and wouldn't throw off any metal detectors.

I think the current rhetoric of the gun lobby is trying to tilt the debate to the right so the status quo appears reasonable by comparison. Only in a world with 5 digit would KCitons be able to say he's firmly in the middle on the issue and be able to keep a straight face.

 

[KCitons]

I keep a straight face all the time. Just look at my avatar.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

It just seems as if 5 Digit and people like him are going to absurd lengths to argue that more guns in the hands of private citizens make us more safe. It's not enough for them to push a libertarian-based, "leave us alone to do what we want so long as we don't harm others" argument in favor of gun ownership- THAT argument is very compelling, actually. But they can't leave it there; they have to push forward this absurd idea that increased gun ownership is actually a positive and leads to more safety. (And of course, they also express a paranoid terror of governmental dictatorship as a primary reason for private gun ownership, over and above the issue of personal security.)

Tim hates it when he's wrong so he has to throw in the black helicopters to try to save face...

 

[The Commish]

If the people working and visiting there were allowed to conceal carry it is likely to have been fewer casualties.

And this is based on what? I get that this is a belief of yours, but I want to know what you base it on. I ask this question because I know few gun owners who would run TO a situation like this in lieu of fleeing. Most understand that confrontations in public places they are not part of is not their place...that's what the authorities are for.

Do some research, it's been posted many times the success rate of a concealed carry owner intervening in these shootings compared to police - they have the element of surprise on their side which is obviously huge. When you have these gun free zones you take away that option and are forced to rely on a slow response time from officials. It took them 40 minutes to engage the shooter in this case.

I HAVE done research and the above is what's staring me in the face.....that most of them don't engage in public places when they aren't part of the event. So the reality is, this "stat" you keep bringing up really is of no use because police don't have the luxury of not engaging. Even if they were apples to apples how do you prove that it's BECAUSE it was a place where people can carry a gun and not simple a CORRELATION? If you insist that this is a valid stat let's at least consider a decision to flee a failure then look at the stat with that factored in.

 

[The Commish]

It just seems as if 5 Digit and people like him are going to absurd lengths to argue that more guns in the hands of private citizens make us more safe. It's not enough for them to push a libertarian-based, "leave us alone to do what we want so long as we don't harm others" argument in favor of gun ownership- THAT argument is very compelling, actually. But they can't leave it there; they have to push forward this absurd idea that increased gun ownership is actually a positive and leads to more safety. (And of course, they also express a paranoid terror of governmental dictatorship as a primary reason for private gun ownership, over and above the issue of personal security.)

Tim hates it when he's wrong so he has to throw in the black helicopters to try to save face...

Not sure this is really a black helicopter circumstance and I offer up most of the southeast as an example of what I think he's eluding to. Shortly after Obama was elected it took WEEKS go get ammo for guns because people were afraid Obama was going to do something to prevent them having their guns and ammo and bought out the stores. I'm not sure "governmental dictatorship" is the right phrase but there was certainly a healthy level of paranoia in this area of the country. To his comment regarding the lengths folks are going to...he's right. It's unnecessary and very hyperbole laced for no reason.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

If the people working and visiting there were allowed to conceal carry it is likely to have been fewer casualties.

And this is based on what? I get that this is a belief of yours, but I want to know what you base it on. I ask this question because I know few gun owners who would run TO a situation like this in lieu of fleeing. Most understand that confrontations in public places they are not part of is not their place...that's what the authorities are for.

Do some research, it's been posted many times the success rate of a concealed carry owner intervening in these shootings compared to police - they have the element of surprise on their side which is obviously huge. When you have these gun free zones you take away that option and are forced to rely on a slow response time from officials. It took them 40 minutes to engage the shooter in this case.

I HAVE done research and the above is what's staring me in the face.....that most of them don't engage in public places when they aren't part of the event. So the reality is, this "stat" you keep bringing up really is of no use because police don't have the luxury of not engaging. Even if they were apples to apples how do you prove that it's BECAUSE it was a place where people can carry a gun and not simple a CORRELATION? If you insist that this is a valid stat let's at least consider a decision to flee a failure then look at the stat with that factored in.

I don't think you have, you'll have to share what you think you found.

The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29

The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33

9/6/1949 - Howard Barton Unruh went on a shooting rampage in Camden, New Jersey with a German Luger. He shot up a barber shop, a pharmacy and a tailor’s shop killing 13 people. He finally surrendered after a shoot-out with police.

7/18/1984 – James Oliver Huberty shot up a McDonalds in San Ysidro, California killing 21 people before police shoot and killed him.

10/16/1991 - George Hennard entered Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas and began indiscriminately shooting the patrons. He killed 23 people in all. He commit suicide after being cornered and wounded in a shootout with police.

12/7/1993 – Colin Ferguson brought a handgun into a Long Island Rail Road car and opened fire at random. He killed 6 people before passengers Michael O’Connor, Kevin Blum and Mark McEntee tackled him while reloading.

11/15/1995 – Jamie Rouse used a .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle to fire indiscriminately inside Richland High School in Lynnville, Tennessee. He killed 2 people before being tackled by a football player and a coach.

2/2/1996 - Barry Loukaitis entered Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake, Washington with a rifle and two handguns. He killed 3 people before the Gym teacher, Jon Lane grabbed the rifle and wrestled the gunman to the ground.

10/1/1997 - Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed 3 students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.

12/1/1997 - Michael Carneal brought a pistol, two rifles and two shotguns to his high school in Paducah, Kentucky and opened fire on a small prayer group killing 3 girls. His rampage was halted when he was tackled by another student.

4/24/1998 - Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed 1 student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.

5/21/1998 - Kipland Kinkel entered Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon with two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle hidden under a trench coat. He opened fire killing 2 students, but while reloading a wounded student named Jacob Ryker tackled him.

4/20/1999 - Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were the killers behind the Columbine shooting in Littleton, Colorado. The two both commit suicide after police arrived, but what many people do not know is that the school’s armed security guard and the police all stood and waited outside the library while executions happed right inside. 15 people died, not including the shooters.

7/31/1999 - Mark Barton was a daytrader who went on a shooting rampage through two day trading firms in Atlanta, Georgia. He killed 12 people in all and after a police chase he was surrounded by police at a gas station where he commit suicide.

1/16/2002 – Peter Odighizuwa opened fire with a handgun at The Appalachian School in Grundy, Virginia. 3 people were killed before the shooter was apprehended by 3 students, Mikael Gross, Ted Besen, and Tracy Bridges with handguns without firing.

8/27/2003 – Salvador Tapia entered an auto parts store in Chicago, Illinois and shot and killed 6 people with a handgun. He then waged a gunbattle with police before a SWAT team fatally wounded him.

9/24/2003 – John Jason McLaughlin brought a .22-caliber pistol to Rocori High School in Cold Spring, Minnesota. He killed 2 people before PE teacher, Mark Johnson confronted him, disarmed him, and held him in the school office for police to arrive.

2/25/2005 – David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire on a public square from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas. The shooter was armed with a rifle and wearing body armor. Mark Wilson fired back with a handgun, hitting the shooter but not penetrating the armor. Mark drew the shooter’s fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded. Mark was the only death in this incident.

3/21/2005 – Jeff Weise was a student at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota. He killed 7 people including a teacher and a security guard. When police cornered him inside the school, he shot and killed himself.

11/8/2005 – Kenneth Bartley, Jr. brought a .22 caliber pistol to Campbell County Comprehensive High School in Jacksboro, Tennessee and killed 1 person before being disarmed by a teacher.

9/29/2006 – Eric Hainstock brought a .22 caliber revolver and a 20-gauge shotgun into Weston High School in Cazenovia, Wisconson. He killed 1 person before staff and students apprehended him and held him until the police arrived.

4/16/2007 – Seung-Hui Cho was the shooter behind the Virgina Tech shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia. Police apprehend the wrong suspect allowing the shooter to walk across campus and open fire again in a second location. He eventually commit suicide after murdering 32 people.

12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed 2 people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing 2 more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and commit suicide before police arrived.

9/3/2008 – Isaac Zamora went on a shooting rampage in Alger, Washington that killed 6 people, including a motorist shot during a high speed chase with police. He eventually surrendered to police.

3/29/2009 – Robert Stewart went on a killing rampage armed with a rifle, and a shotgun in a nursing home in Carthage, North Carolina. He killed 8 people and was apprehended after a shootout with police.

4/3/2009 – Jiverly Wong went on a shooting rampage at a American Civic Association immigration center in Binghamton, New York where he was enrolled in a citizenship class. 13 people were killed before the shooter killed himself. Witnesses say he turned the gun on himself as soon as he heard police sirens approaching.

11/5/2009 – Nidal Malik Hasan was the shooter behind the Fort Hood shooting at a military base just outside Killeen, Texas. The shooter entered the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, where personnel are disarmed, armed with a laser sighted pistol and a Smith & Wesson revolver. He killed 13 people before he was shot by a civilian police officer.

2/12/2010 – Amy Bishop went on a shooting rampage in classroom at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama. She killed 3 people before the Dean of the University, Debra Moriarity pushed the her out of the room and blockaded the door. She was arrested later.

1/8/2011 – Jared Lee Loughner is charged with the shooting in Tucson, Arizona that killed 6 people, including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll. He was stopped when he was tackled by two civilians.

2/27/2012 – T.J. Lane entered Chardon High School in Chardon, Ohio with a handgun and started shooting. 3 students died. The shooter was chased out of the building by a teacher and apprehended by police later.

4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. The shooter killed 1 person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.

7/20/2012 – James Holmes went into a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and opens fire with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. 12 people were killed, before the shooter surrendered to police.

8/5/2012 – Wade Michael Page entered a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin and opened fire killing 6 people. He commit suicide after being shot by police.

12/14/12 - Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School with two handguns and a riffle and went room to room shooting students and staff. He killed 27 in all including 20 children, and commit suicide after police arrived.

The evidence is overwhelming but something tells me based on your history you will ignore it.

 

[The Commish]

If the people working and visiting there were allowed to conceal carry it is likely to have been fewer casualties.

And this is based on what? I get that this is a belief of yours, but I want to know what you base it on. I ask this question because I know few gun owners who would run TO a situation like this in lieu of fleeing. Most understand that confrontations in public places they are not part of is not their place...that's what the authorities are for.

Do some research, it's been posted many times the success rate of a concealed carry owner intervening in these shootings compared to police - they have the element of surprise on their side which is obviously huge. When you have these gun free zones you take away that option and are forced to rely on a slow response time from officials. It took them 40 minutes to engage the shooter in this case.

I HAVE done research and the above is what's staring me in the face.....that most of them don't engage in public places when they aren't part of the event. So the reality is, this "stat" you keep bringing up really is of no use because police don't have the luxury of not engaging. Even if they were apples to apples how do you prove that it's BECAUSE it was a place where people can carry a gun and not simple a CORRELATION? If you insist that this is a valid stat let's at least consider a decision to flee a failure then look at the stat with that factored in.

I don't think you have, you'll have to share what you think you found.

The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29

The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33

9/6/1949 - Howard Barton Unruh went on a shooting rampage in Camden, New Jersey with a German Luger. He shot up a barber shop, a pharmacy and a tailor’s shop killing 13 people. He finally surrendered after a shoot-out with police.

7/18/1984 – James Oliver Huberty shot up a McDonalds in San Ysidro, California killing 21 people before police shoot and killed him.

10/16/1991 - George Hennard entered Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas and began indiscriminately shooting the patrons. He killed 23 people in all. He commit suicide after being cornered and wounded in a shootout with police.

12/7/1993 – Colin Ferguson brought a handgun into a Long Island Rail Road car and opened fire at random. He killed 6 people before passengers Michael O’Connor, Kevin Blum and Mark McEntee tackled him while reloading.

11/15/1995 – Jamie Rouse used a .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle to fire indiscriminately inside Richland High School in Lynnville, Tennessee. He killed 2 people before being tackled by a football player and a coach.

2/2/1996 - Barry Loukaitis entered Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake, Washington with a rifle and two handguns. He killed 3 people before the Gym teacher, Jon Lane grabbed the rifle and wrestled the gunman to the ground.

10/1/1997 - Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed 3 students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.

12/1/1997 - Michael Carneal brought a pistol, two rifles and two shotguns to his high school in Paducah, Kentucky and opened fire on a small prayer group killing 3 girls. His rampage was halted when he was tackled by another student.

4/24/1998 - Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed 1 student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.

5/21/1998 - Kipland Kinkel entered Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon with two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle hidden under a trench coat. He opened fire killing 2 students, but while reloading a wounded student named Jacob Ryker tackled him.

4/20/1999 - Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were the killers behind the Columbine shooting in Littleton, Colorado. The two both commit suicide after police arrived, but what many people do not know is that the school’s armed security guard and the police all stood and waited outside the library while executions happed right inside. 15 people died, not including the shooters.

7/31/1999 - Mark Barton was a daytrader who went on a shooting rampage through two day trading firms in Atlanta, Georgia. He killed 12 people in all and after a police chase he was surrounded by police at a gas station where he commit suicide.

1/16/2002 – Peter Odighizuwa opened fire with a handgun at The Appalachian School in Grundy, Virginia. 3 people were killed before the shooter was apprehended by 3 students, Mikael Gross, Ted Besen, and Tracy Bridges with handguns without firing.

8/27/2003 – Salvador Tapia entered an auto parts store in Chicago, Illinois and shot and killed 6 people with a handgun. He then waged a gunbattle with police before a SWAT team fatally wounded him.

9/24/2003 – John Jason McLaughlin brought a .22-caliber pistol to Rocori High School in Cold Spring, Minnesota. He killed 2 people before PE teacher, Mark Johnson confronted him, disarmed him, and held him in the school office for police to arrive.

2/25/2005 – David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire on a public square from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas. The shooter was armed with a rifle and wearing body armor. Mark Wilson fired back with a handgun, hitting the shooter but not penetrating the armor. Mark drew the shooter’s fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded. Mark was the only death in this incident.

3/21/2005 – Jeff Weise was a student at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota. He killed 7 people including a teacher and a security guard. When police cornered him inside the school, he shot and killed himself.

11/8/2005 – Kenneth Bartley, Jr. brought a .22 caliber pistol to Campbell County Comprehensive High School in Jacksboro, Tennessee and killed 1 person before being disarmed by a teacher.

9/29/2006 – Eric Hainstock brought a .22 caliber revolver and a 20-gauge shotgun into Weston High School in Cazenovia, Wisconson. He killed 1 person before staff and students apprehended him and held him until the police arrived.

4/16/2007 – Seung-Hui Cho was the shooter behind the Virgina Tech shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia. Police apprehend the wrong suspect allowing the shooter to walk across campus and open fire again in a second location. He eventually commit suicide after murdering 32 people.

12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed 2 people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing 2 more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and commit suicide before police arrived.

9/3/2008 – Isaac Zamora went on a shooting rampage in Alger, Washington that killed 6 people, including a motorist shot during a high speed chase with police. He eventually surrendered to police.

3/29/2009 – Robert Stewart went on a killing rampage armed with a rifle, and a shotgun in a nursing home in Carthage, North Carolina. He killed 8 people and was apprehended after a shootout with police.

4/3/2009 – Jiverly Wong went on a shooting rampage at a American Civic Association immigration center in Binghamton, New York where he was enrolled in a citizenship class. 13 people were killed before the shooter killed himself. Witnesses say he turned the gun on himself as soon as he heard police sirens approaching.

11/5/2009 – Nidal Malik Hasan was the shooter behind the Fort Hood shooting at a military base just outside Killeen, Texas. The shooter entered the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, where personnel are disarmed, armed with a laser sighted pistol and a Smith & Wesson revolver. He killed 13 people before he was shot by a civilian police officer.

2/12/2010 – Amy Bishop went on a shooting rampage in classroom at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama. She killed 3 people before the Dean of the University, Debra Moriarity pushed the her out of the room and blockaded the door. She was arrested later.

1/8/2011 – Jared Lee Loughner is charged with the shooting in Tucson, Arizona that killed 6 people, including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll. He was stopped when he was tackled by two civilians.

2/27/2012 – T.J. Lane entered Chardon High School in Chardon, Ohio with a handgun and started shooting. 3 students died. The shooter was chased out of the building by a teacher and apprehended by police later.

4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. The shooter killed 1 person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.

7/20/2012 – James Holmes went into a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and opens fire with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. 12 people were killed, before the shooter surrendered to police.

8/5/2012 – Wade Michael Page entered a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin and opened fire killing 6 people. He commit suicide after being shot by police.

12/14/12 - Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School with two handguns and a riffle and went room to room shooting students and staff. He killed 27 in all including 20 children, and commit suicide after police arrived.

The evidence is overwhelming but something tells me based on your history you will ignore it.

You told me to do my own due dillegence when I asked you for your information. I'll request the same of you. I'll give you a head start though....two studies that I've read just recently address this. One by the Nashville PD and one by the Cincy PD.

Now, to this list of "evidence" you just posted here. I really have no idea what you're attempting to prove here. Initially I thought your argument was "in areas where people can carry guns, the number of victims is limited" Is that correct? I ask because you give as "evidence" to your point a TON of incidents where people tackle, apprehend, slow down the suspect without a gun at all. There are a few here where the citizen stopped them by using their gun (shooting or not shooting) but i'm trying to understand why you are using cases where a person stops another person without use of a gun as "evidence" towards your initial argument that carrying a gun leads to less victims in mass shooting situations.

How about resetting and making clear your point because it appears that you're constantly moving the goal posts. I just want to understand what your argument is. You won't get an argument from me that heroic people have a better shot of limiting mass shooting casualties. It's logical. They are already there. They have the element of surprise. Guns CAN be part of the equation but your own post shows that most of the time, they do that without a gun and I thought guns were germane to your argument.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

You told me to do my own due dillegence when I asked you for your information. I'll request the same of you. I'll give you a head start though....two studies that I've read just recently address this. One by the Nashville PD and one by the Cincy PD.

Now, to this list of "evidence" you just posted here. I really have no idea what you're attempting to prove here. Initially I thought your argument was "in areas where people can carry guns, the number of victims is limited" Is that correct? I ask because you give as "evidence" to your point a TON of incidents where people tackle, apprehend, slow down the suspect without a gun at all. There are a few here where the citizen stopped them by using their gun (shooting or not shooting) but i'm trying to understand why you are using cases where a person stops another person without use of a gun as "evidence" towards your initial argument that carrying a gun leads to less victims in mass shooting situations.

How about resetting and making clear your point because it appears that you're constantly moving the goal posts. I just want to understand what your argument is. You won't get an argument from me that heroic people have a better shot of limiting mass shooting casualties. It's logical. They are already there. They have the element of surprise. Guns CAN be part of the equation but your own post shows that most of the time, they do that without a gun and I thought guns were germane to your argument.

wow

Shocker, you ignored the mountain of evidence...then you asked me to do my own due diligence after I just spelled out for you every rampage shooting in America in the past 50 years? I don't think you know what due dilligence is, I gave you the raw data, to which you ignored and then said for me to do my own due dilligence?

"in areas where people can carry guns, the number of victims is limited"

I'm sorry did you say moving the goal posts? Where in the world did I make such a stupid statement?I know math is not your strong suit, so I guess I need to spell out for you what you just ignored: With 15 incidents stopped by police with a total of 217 dead that’s an average of about 14.29. With 17 incidents stopped by civilians and 45 dead that’s an average of 2.33.

The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway. What that means is that police are not ever in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.

Second, within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with a rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.

So, given that far less people die in rampage shootings stopped by a proactive civilian, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians, wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal instead of being disarmed by gun-free zones?

 

[TheIronSheik]

I honestly have no idea which side people are arguing in this thread.

I'm firmly in the middle.

I don't think we should force people to arm themselves. But, by the same standards, we shouldn't force people to un-arm themselves either. In the case of a gun free zone, this is essentially what they are doing.

Why do people own guns, or carry guns in the first place? To protect their life and property. When put in a place where guns are not allowed, are we to assume that the location is secured to the point that we no longer need to protect our own life or property any longer.

Again, I didn't expect the civilian secretary to pull out a gun and disarm Aaron Alexis. But, there are probably people that were hurt and families of people that were killed that are probably wondering why there weren't more guns on the premise to limit the number of shots fired.

As far as the shotgun the guy used. A 12 gauge pump shotgun could be broke down into enough pieces, that it could be brought in unnoticed over the course of a few days. The barrel and the stock would be the only two things that may be obvious. Even then it may have been a pistol grip stock that could be hidden in a gym bag or backpack and wouldn't throw off any metal detectors.

I think the current rhetoric of the gun lobby is trying to tilt the debate to the right so the status quo appears reasonable by comparison. Only in a world with 5 digit would KCitons be able to say he's firmly in the middle on the issue and be able to keep a straight face.

I meant in this thread, I'm having trouble figuring out who's arguing what point. Seems like people are all over the map.

Use chemical weapons to kill hundreds of people and people don't bat an eye. A guy shoots some people with a shotgun and everyone loses their mind.

 

[timschochet]

I'm horrified by both. Both events make me feel helpless and angry. The chemical weapons, though, we're far worse.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I honestly have no idea which side people are arguing in this thread.

I'm firmly in the middle.

I don't think we should force people to arm themselves. But, by the same standards, we shouldn't force people to un-arm themselves either. In the case of a gun free zone, this is essentially what they are doing.

Why do people own guns, or carry guns in the first place? To protect their life and property. When put in a place where guns are not allowed, are we to assume that the location is secured to the point that we no longer need to protect our own life or property any longer.

Again, I didn't expect the civilian secretary to pull out a gun and disarm Aaron Alexis. But, there are probably people that were hurt and families of people that were killed that are probably wondering why there weren't more guns on the premise to limit the number of shots fired.

As far as the shotgun the guy used. A 12 gauge pump shotgun could be broke down into enough pieces, that it could be brought in unnoticed over the course of a few days. The barrel and the stock would be the only two things that may be obvious. Even then it may have been a pistol grip stock that could be hidden in a gym bag or backpack and wouldn't throw off any metal detectors.

I think the current rhetoric of the gun lobby is trying to tilt the debate to the right so the status quo appears reasonable by comparison. Only in a world with 5 digit would KCitons be able to say he's firmly in the middle on the issue and be able to keep a straight face.

I meant in this thread, I'm having trouble figuring out who's arguing what point. Seems like people are all over the map.

Use chemical weapons to kill hundreds of people and people don't bat an eye. A guy shoots some people with a shotgun and everyone loses their mind.

People make this weird argument about priorities all the time. I've never understood the point. People care more about things that happen in their own country than halfway around the world, just like people care more about things that happen in their own city than halfway across the country, and more about things that happen in their own neighborhood than on the other side of the city.

Proximity and familiarity make things more relevant and interesting to people. It's a totally normal and reasonable reaction.

 

[Rayderr]

getting back to the actual topic, here at my installation, the guards were passing at cards at the gate telling us how we can detect "insider threats" The list of "signs" includes, encouraging disruptive behavior, refusing to deploy for political reasons, associating with terrorists (that's #5) and so on. All of which seems to not apply in the Navy Yard case, and the list seems to be comprised solely of stuff that the Ft. Hood shooter did.

 

[Jewell]

Both events make me feel helpless and angry.

:virtual hug:

 

[VA703]

they cancelled the german airforce oktoberfest in dulles tonight because of what happend monday

 

[The Commish]

You told me to do my own due dillegence when I asked you for your information. I'll request the same of you. I'll give you a head start though....two studies that I've read just recently address this. One by the Nashville PD and one by the Cincy PD.

Now, to this list of "evidence" you just posted here. I really have no idea what you're attempting to prove here. Initially I thought your argument was "in areas where people can carry guns, the number of victims is limited" Is that correct? I ask because you give as "evidence" to your point a TON of incidents where people tackle, apprehend, slow down the suspect without a gun at all. There are a few here where the citizen stopped them by using their gun (shooting or not shooting) but i'm trying to understand why you are using cases where a person stops another person without use of a gun as "evidence" towards your initial argument that carrying a gun leads to less victims in mass shooting situations.

How about resetting and making clear your point because it appears that you're constantly moving the goal posts. I just want to understand what your argument is. You won't get an argument from me that heroic people have a better shot of limiting mass shooting casualties. It's logical. They are already there. They have the element of surprise. Guns CAN be part of the equation but your own post shows that most of the time, they do that without a gun and I thought guns were germane to your argument.

wow

Shocker, you ignored the mountain of evidence...then you asked me to do my own due diligence after I just spelled out for you every rampage shooting in America in the past 50 years? I don't think you know what due dilligence is, I gave you the raw data, to which you ignored and then said for me to do my own due dilligence?

"in areas where people can carry guns, the number of victims is limited"

I'm sorry did you say moving the goal posts? Where in the world did I make such a stupid statement?I know math is not your strong suit, so I guess I need to spell out for you what you just ignored: With 15 incidents stopped by police with a total of 217 dead that’s an average of about 14.29. With 17 incidents stopped by civilians and 45 dead that’s an average of 2.33.

The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway. What that means is that police are not ever in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.

Second, within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with a rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.

So, given that far less people die in rampage shootings stopped by a proactive civilian, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians, wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal instead of being disarmed by gun-free zones?

To be fair....I have no ####### clue what your point is.....let me reset and simplify my confusion with you. What do unarmed heros have to do with bolstering your argument that more armed individuals keep the deaths in these mass shooting situations to a minimum. I didn't ignore what you posted...I'm simply struggling to understand what it has to do with anything. An unarmed hero stopping a shooter doesn't really do anything to support your assertion that the more armed people there are, the fewer casualties.

 

[Rayderr]

I honestly have no idea which side people are arguing in this thread.

I'm firmly in the middle.

I don't think we should force people to arm themselves. But, by the same standards, we shouldn't force people to un-arm themselves either. In the case of a gun free zone, this is essentially what they are doing.

Why do people own guns, or carry guns in the first place? To protect their life and property. When put in a place where guns are not allowed, are we to assume that the location is secured to the point that we no longer need to protect our own life or property any longer.

Again, I didn't expect the civilian secretary to pull out a gun and disarm Aaron Alexis. But, there are probably people that were hurt and families of people that were killed that are probably wondering why there weren't more guns on the premise to limit the number of shots fired.

As far as the shotgun the guy used. A 12 gauge pump shotgun could be broke down into enough pieces, that it could be brought in unnoticed over the course of a few days. The barrel and the stock would be the only two things that may be obvious. Even then it may have been a pistol grip stock that could be hidden in a gym bag or backpack and wouldn't throw off any metal detectors.

I think the current rhetoric of the gun lobby is trying to tilt the debate to the right so the status quo appears reasonable by comparison. Only in a world with 5 digit would KCitons be able to say he's firmly in the middle on the issue and be able to keep a straight face.

I meant in this thread, I'm having trouble figuring out who's arguing what point. Seems like people are all over the map.

Use chemical weapons to kill hundreds of people and people don't bat an eye. A guy shoots some people with a shotgun and everyone loses their mind.

People make this weird argument about priorities all the time. I've never understood the point. It's not exactly news that people care more about things that happen in their own country than halfway around the world, just like it's not exactly news that people care more about things that happen in their own city than halfway across the country, and more about things that happen in their own neighborhood than on the other side of the city.

Proximity and familiarity make things more relevant and interesting to people. It's a totally normal and reasonable reaction.

That ain't it either. There are on average 38 murders per day. For most people in this country, there were murders that took place the same day as the Navy Yard shooting, that were a lot closer. Yet, for the most part, they ignore those and concentrate on this.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I honestly have no idea which side people are arguing in this thread.

I'm firmly in the middle.

I don't think we should force people to arm themselves. But, by the same standards, we shouldn't force people to un-arm themselves either. In the case of a gun free zone, this is essentially what they are doing.

Why do people own guns, or carry guns in the first place? To protect their life and property. When put in a place where guns are not allowed, are we to assume that the location is secured to the point that we no longer need to protect our own life or property any longer.

Again, I didn't expect the civilian secretary to pull out a gun and disarm Aaron Alexis. But, there are probably people that were hurt and families of people that were killed that are probably wondering why there weren't more guns on the premise to limit the number of shots fired.

As far as the shotgun the guy used. A 12 gauge pump shotgun could be broke down into enough pieces, that it could be brought in unnoticed over the course of a few days. The barrel and the stock would be the only two things that may be obvious. Even then it may have been a pistol grip stock that could be hidden in a gym bag or backpack and wouldn't throw off any metal detectors.

I think the current rhetoric of the gun lobby is trying to tilt the debate to the right so the status quo appears reasonable by comparison. Only in a world with 5 digit would KCitons be able to say he's firmly in the middle on the issue and be able to keep a straight face.

I meant in this thread, I'm having trouble figuring out who's arguing what point. Seems like people are all over the map.

Use chemical weapons to kill hundreds of people and people don't bat an eye. A guy shoots some people with a shotgun and everyone loses their mind.

People make this weird argument about priorities all the time. I've never understood the point. People care more about things that happen in their own country than halfway around the world, just like people care more about things that happen in their own city than halfway across the country, and more about things that happen in their own neighborhood than on the other side of the city.

Proximity and familiarity make things more relevant and interesting to people. It's a totally normal and reasonable reaction.

To be fair, I was just making a joke.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

You told me to do my own due dillegence when I asked you for your information. I'll request the same of you. I'll give you a head start though....two studies that I've read just recently address this. One by the Nashville PD and one by the Cincy PD.

Now, to this list of "evidence" you just posted here. I really have no idea what you're attempting to prove here. Initially I thought your argument was "in areas where people can carry guns, the number of victims is limited" Is that correct? I ask because you give as "evidence" to your point a TON of incidents where people tackle, apprehend, slow down the suspect without a gun at all. There are a few here where the citizen stopped them by using their gun (shooting or not shooting) but i'm trying to understand why you are using cases where a person stops another person without use of a gun as "evidence" towards your initial argument that carrying a gun leads to less victims in mass shooting situations.

How about resetting and making clear your point because it appears that you're constantly moving the goal posts. I just want to understand what your argument is. You won't get an argument from me that heroic people have a better shot of limiting mass shooting casualties. It's logical. They are already there. They have the element of surprise. Guns CAN be part of the equation but your own post shows that most of the time, they do that without a gun and I thought guns were germane to your argument.

wow

Shocker, you ignored the mountain of evidence...then you asked me to do my own due diligence after I just spelled out for you every rampage shooting in America in the past 50 years? I don't think you know what due dilligence is, I gave you the raw data, to which you ignored and then said for me to do my own due dilligence?

"in areas where people can carry guns, the number of victims is limited"

I'm sorry did you say moving the goal posts? Where in the world did I make such a stupid statement?I know math is not your strong suit, so I guess I need to spell out for you what you just ignored: With 15 incidents stopped by police with a total of 217 dead that’s an average of about 14.29. With 17 incidents stopped by civilians and 45 dead that’s an average of 2.33.

The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway. What that means is that police are not ever in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.

Second, within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with a rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.

So, given that far less people die in rampage shootings stopped by a proactive civilian, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians, wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal instead of being disarmed by gun-free zones?

To be fair....I have no ####### clue what your point is.....let me reset and simplify my confusion with you. What do unarmed heros have to do with bolstering your argument that more armed individuals keep the deaths in these mass shooting situations to a minimum. I didn't ignore what you posted...I'm simply struggling to understand what it has to do with anything. An unarmed hero stopping a shooter doesn't really do anything to support your assertion that the more armed people there are, the fewer casualties.

You do this in every thread, you play the dumb card and then twist and contort the very obvious facts staring at you in the face. Sorry nobody can be that dumb or that bad at fishing. Ignored.

 

[timschochet]

It's the same reason one plane crash is news while 1000 car crashes are not news. It's the unexpected.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I honestly have no idea which side people are arguing in this thread.

I'm firmly in the middle.

I don't think we should force people to arm themselves. But, by the same standards, we shouldn't force people to un-arm themselves either. In the case of a gun free zone, this is essentially what they are doing.

Why do people own guns, or carry guns in the first place? To protect their life and property. When put in a place where guns are not allowed, are we to assume that the location is secured to the point that we no longer need to protect our own life or property any longer.

Again, I didn't expect the civilian secretary to pull out a gun and disarm Aaron Alexis. But, there are probably people that were hurt and families of people that were killed that are probably wondering why there weren't more guns on the premise to limit the number of shots fired.

As far as the shotgun the guy used. A 12 gauge pump shotgun could be broke down into enough pieces, that it could be brought in unnoticed over the course of a few days. The barrel and the stock would be the only two things that may be obvious. Even then it may have been a pistol grip stock that could be hidden in a gym bag or backpack and wouldn't throw off any metal detectors.

I think the current rhetoric of the gun lobby is trying to tilt the debate to the right so the status quo appears reasonable by comparison. Only in a world with 5 digit would KCitons be able to say he's firmly in the middle on the issue and be able to keep a straight face.

I meant in this thread, I'm having trouble figuring out who's arguing what point. Seems like people are all over the map.

Use chemical weapons to kill hundreds of people and people don't bat an eye. A guy shoots some people with a shotgun and everyone loses their mind.

People make this weird argument about priorities all the time. I've never understood the point. It's not exactly news that people care more about things that happen in their own country than halfway around the world, just like it's not exactly news that people care more about things that happen in their own city than halfway across the country, and more about things that happen in their own neighborhood than on the other side of the city.

Proximity and familiarity make things more relevant and interesting to people. It's a totally normal and reasonable reaction.

That ain't it either. There are on average 38 murders per day. For most people in this country, there were murders that took place the same day as the Navy Yard shooting, that were a lot closer. Yet, for the most part, they ignore those and concentrate on this.

Now you're comparing apples and oranges. The vast majority of those murders are either committed by family members/significant others or are an outgrowth of criminal activity in which the victim was involved. That means a prudent person can, for the most part, avoid being a victim by making good choices, and it also means that in some sense the victims could "see it coming" in some sense. That sort of killing wouldn't receive the same amount of media attention as "senseless murders" for obvious reasons. And the vast majority of them are also single-victim killings, which also don't receive the same amount of attention for obvious reasons.

The comparison between chemical attacks and this was presumably a comparison of two senseless mass killings. You're bringing a totally different thing into the discussion.

 

[timschochet]

5 Digit, I don't think The Commish is fishing. You are extremely quick to post anecdotes, I'm guessing garnered from pro-gun websites, in order to prove your point. In fact they prove nothing. You still haven't been able to provide one shred of real, non-anecdotal evidence that the more guns, the safer we are, and you won't, because that evidence doesn't exist.

 

[The Commish]

5 Digit, I don't think The Commish is fishing. You are extremely quick to post anecdotes, I'm guessing garnered from pro-gun websites, in order to prove your point. In fact they prove nothing. You still haven't been able to provide one shred of real, non-anecdotal evidence that the more guns, the safer we are, and you won't, because that evidence doesn't exist.

No need to fish in a situation like this...plenty of confusion to go around with "facts" presented that really have nothing to do with what the point is. If he's not suggesting his belief is the more armed civilians, the fewer casualties in these events, then I'm wrong and apologize. That's why I was asking what his actual assertion was, but I guess he doesn't want to clarify. He'd rather call people names and insult them.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

5 Digit, I don't think The Commish is fishing. You are extremely quick to post anecdotes, I'm guessing garnered from pro-gun websites, in order to prove your point. In fact they prove nothing. You still haven't been able to provide one shred of real, non-anecdotal evidence that the more guns, the safer we are, and you won't, because that evidence doesn't exist.

So you are telling me you don't understand my position either? How many stats on shooters selecting gun-free zones, or stats on civilians stopping these shooting sprees vs. when police eventually intercede do you need? What part of waiting 40 minutes to engage the shooter is 40 minutes too long, or that seconds count?

How many times do I need to repeat myself that if this wasn't a gun-free zone (TRANSLATION: civilians were allowed to carry personal firearms) that the casualties would not be as high?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Latest developments...

THE RESPONSE

Stand down: A government official told CNN that when the first radio call came in about a shooting at the Navy Yard, highly-trained tactical U.S. Capitol Police officers headed to the base were told by a watch commander to stand down. The chief has now ordered an "independent fact review."

Undermanned: The Navy Yard also has its own police force. But there were only seven officers working Monday, a police officer and a union official said.

3000 people at the facility and 7 armed officers?

 

[Rayderr]

Latest developments...

THE RESPONSE

Stand down: A government official told CNN that when the first radio call came in about a shooting at the Navy Yard, highly-trained tactical U.S. Capitol Police officers headed to the base were told by a watch commander to stand down. The chief has now ordered an "independent fact review."

Undermanned: The Navy Yard also has its own police force. But there were only seven officers working Monday, a police officer and a union official said.

3000 people at the facility and 7 armed officers?

I'm guessing they mean 7 patrolling officers. The installation I work at is smaller, yet we have more than that just stationed at the buildings and gates.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Latest developments...

THE RESPONSE

Stand down: A government official told CNN that when the first radio call came in about a shooting at the Navy Yard, highly-trained tactical U.S. Capitol Police officers headed to the base were told by a watch commander to stand down. The chief has now ordered an "independent fact review."

Undermanned: The Navy Yard also has its own police force. But there were only seven officers working Monday, a police officer and a union official said.

3000 people at the facility and 7 armed officers?

I'm guessing they mean 7 patrolling officers. The installation I work at is smaller, yet we have more than that just stationed at the buildings and gates.

I assumed patrolling as well, but for what is approximately 6 city blocks by 4 city blocks with multiple floors per building it doesn't seem nearly enough.

 

[The Commish]

5 Digit, I don't think The Commish is fishing. You are extremely quick to post anecdotes, I'm guessing garnered from pro-gun websites, in order to prove your point. In fact they prove nothing. You still haven't been able to provide one shred of real, non-anecdotal evidence that the more guns, the safer we are, and you won't, because that evidence doesn't exist.

No need to fish in a situation like this...plenty of confusion to go around with "facts" presented that really have nothing to do with what the point is. If he's not suggesting his belief is the more armed civilians, the fewer casualties in these events, then I'm wrong and apologize. That's why I was asking what his actual assertion was, but I guess he doesn't want to clarify. He'd rather call people names and insult them.

The other thing I don't really understand is his position that they intentionally chose "no gun zone" areas because they were "no gun zone", not because it was places they worked, went to school etc. Does he believe that it's just coincidence that the "no gun zone" just happens to be the place they worked or went to school?

 

[timschochet]

5 Digit, I don't think The Commish is fishing. You are extremely quick to post anecdotes, I'm guessing garnered from pro-gun websites, in order to prove your point. In fact they prove nothing. You still haven't been able to provide one shred of real, non-anecdotal evidence that the more guns, the safer we are, and you won't, because that evidence doesn't exist.

So you are telling me you don't understand my position either? How many stats on shooters selecting gun-free zones, or stats on civilians stopping these shooting sprees vs. when police eventually intercede do you need? What part of waiting 40 minutes to engage the shooter is 40 minutes too long, or that seconds count?

How many times do I need to repeat myself that if this wasn't a gun-free zone (TRANSLATION: civilians were allowed to carry personal firearms) that the casualties would not be as high?

I think I understand your position perfectly. I just find it absurd. You continue to suggest that these shooters purposefully select gun free zones. The notion that this particular shooter chose this site, figuring that the armed guards couldn't stop him, but that armed civilians might, is beyond laughable.

 

[TobiasFunke]

5 Digit, I don't think The Commish is fishing. You are extremely quick to post anecdotes, I'm guessing garnered from pro-gun websites, in order to prove your point. In fact they prove nothing. You still haven't been able to provide one shred of real, non-anecdotal evidence that the more guns, the safer we are, and you won't, because that evidence doesn't exist.

So you are telling me you don't understand my position either? How many stats on shooters selecting gun-free zones, or stats on civilians stopping these shooting sprees vs. when police eventually intercede do you need? What part of waiting 40 minutes to engage the shooter is 40 minutes too long, or that seconds count?

How many times do I need to repeat myself that if this wasn't a gun-free zone (TRANSLATION: civilians were allowed to carry personal firearms) that the casualties would not be as high?

I think I understand your position perfectly. I just find it absurd. You continue to suggest that these shooters purposefully select gun free zones. The notion that this particular shooter chose this site, figuring that the armed guards couldn't stop him, but that armed civilians might, is beyond laughable.

it's a nonsense argument anyway. Here's a report finding that only 23% of mass shootings in public spaces occur in gun-free zones. Of course that's pretty much a useless statistic without context anyway- we'd need to know how many public spaces are gun-free zones generally to figure out if 23% was significantly higher or lower than the norm. We'd also want to know the average # of killings in the gun-free zones vs. other areas to figure out if the presence of weapons reduced the # of deaths even if it didn't prevent an incident. And even then we'd probably need a lot more data to remove other variables from the equation. But at least it's more useful than an anecdotal list of incidents.

Bottom line, though- it's garbage. There's no concrete evidence that concealed weapons make a place more safe, or that they make it less safe.

 

[The Commish]

5 Digit, I don't think The Commish is fishing. You are extremely quick to post anecdotes, I'm guessing garnered from pro-gun websites, in order to prove your point. In fact they prove nothing. You still haven't been able to provide one shred of real, non-anecdotal evidence that the more guns, the safer we are, and you won't, because that evidence doesn't exist.

So you are telling me you don't understand my position either? How many stats on shooters selecting gun-free zones, or stats on civilians stopping these shooting sprees vs. when police eventually intercede do you need? What part of waiting 40 minutes to engage the shooter is 40 minutes too long, or that seconds count?

How many times do I need to repeat myself that if this wasn't a gun-free zone (TRANSLATION: civilians were allowed to carry personal firearms) that the casualties would not be as high?

I think I understand your position perfectly. I just find it absurd. You continue to suggest that these shooters purposefully select gun free zones. The notion that this particular shooter chose this site, figuring that the armed guards couldn't stop him, but that armed civilians might, is beyond laughable.

This was the place that he worked and felt as if he'd been wronged (whether sane or not doesn't matter to this point) correct? It's not like he was working at the local McDonalds, got pissed and said "hey, civilians can carry guns around here, let me go down to the Naval Yard and shoot that place up since the only folks there that have guns are the guards". #1, it's completely illogical and #2 if it weren't completely illogical it's a fairly sophisticated thought for someone who supposedly had a lot of mental health problems.

 

[The Commish]

Whew...ok, I got I thought I was the only one and was going crazy. Hook's been spit out...carry on.

 

[KCitons]

I honestly have no idea which side people are arguing in this thread.

I'm firmly in the middle.

I don't think we should force people to arm themselves. But, by the same standards, we shouldn't force people to un-arm themselves either. In the case of a gun free zone, this is essentially what they are doing.

Why do people own guns, or carry guns in the first place? To protect their life and property. When put in a place where guns are not allowed, are we to assume that the location is secured to the point that we no longer need to protect our own life or property any longer.

Again, I didn't expect the civilian secretary to pull out a gun and disarm Aaron Alexis. But, there are probably people that were hurt and families of people that were killed that are probably wondering why there weren't more guns on the premise to limit the number of shots fired.

As far as the shotgun the guy used. A 12 gauge pump shotgun could be broke down into enough pieces, that it could be brought in unnoticed over the course of a few days. The barrel and the stock would be the only two things that may be obvious. Even then it may have been a pistol grip stock that could be hidden in a gym bag or backpack and wouldn't throw off any metal detectors.

I think the current rhetoric of the gun lobby is trying to tilt the debate to the right so the status quo appears reasonable by comparison. Only in a world with 5 digit would KCitons be able to say he's firmly in the middle on the issue and be able to keep a straight face.

I meant in this thread, I'm having trouble figuring out who's arguing what point. Seems like people are all over the map.

Use chemical weapons to kill hundreds of people and people don't bat an eye. A guy shoots some people with a shotgun and everyone loses their mind.

Or the flooding in Colorado. I went looking for a thread and the one I found was started a couple of days before the massive flooding and was talking about the massive amounts of rain. As of this morning 200 people still unaccounted for.

Maybe because there is no way to fix Mother Nature, it doesn't get as much play in the FFA.

 

[timschochet]

Whew...ok, I got I thought I was the only one and was going crazy. Hook's been spit out...carry on.

No, I've had this debate with him in the thread after Sandy Hook. He's not fishing. None of them are. They truly believe this. Where do you think he got all his anecdotes from?

 

[The Commish]

Whew...ok, I got I thought I was the only one and was going crazy. Hook's been spit out...carry on.

No, I've had this debate with him in the thread after Sandy Hook. He's not fishing. None of them are. They truly believe this.Where do you think he got all his anecdotes from?

Is the belief based on the "evidence" he presented above? If so, that's beyond willful ignorance and I most certainly consider it fishing. I've never really read anything from him before so I have no idea who he is or what he believes. I'd ask him but he has me on ignore apparently

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Why would you argue more armed guards could have limited casualties. But more armed civilians could not?

Or as Tim put it, why would more armed civilians be more likely to miss the shooter and kill each other?

We're talking basic reasonable probabilities here, this isn't rocket science.

 

[The Commish]

Let's use a very recent incident to see if this works. These two guys shoot each other so this is two "wins" for armed people stopping a shooter in a public place, correct?

 

[timschochet]

Why would you argue more armed guards could have limited casualties. But more armed civilians could not?

Or as Tim put it, why would more armed civilians be more likely to miss the shooter and kill each other?

We're talking basic reasonable probabilities here, this isn't rocket science.

First off, because armed guards are trained, while civilians aren't (necessarily).

Second, because there is the greater risks of accidents and gun deaths occurring on a regular basis.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Why would you argue more armed guards could have limited casualties. But more armed civilians could not?

Or as Tim put it, why would more armed civilians be more likely to miss the shooter and kill each other?

We're talking basic reasonable probabilities here, this isn't rocket science.

First off, because armed guards are trained, while civilians aren't (necessarily).Second, because there is the greater risks of accidents and gun deaths occurring on a regular basis.

What are you basing this off of?

This is a naval base, they train with firearms.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Let's use a very recent incident to see if this works. These two guys shoot each other so this is two "wins" for armed people stopping a shooter in a public place, correct?

Its two wins for Darwin and society.

 

[The Commish]

Let's use a very recent incident to see if this works. These two guys shoot each other so this is two "wins" for armed people stopping a shooter in a public place, correct?

Its two wins for Darwin and society.

touche

 

[KCitons]

Why would you argue more armed guards could have limited casualties. But more armed civilians could not?

Or as Tim put it, why would more armed civilians be more likely to miss the shooter and kill each other?

We're talking basic reasonable probabilities here, this isn't rocket science.

First off, because armed guards are trained, while civilians aren't (necessarily).

Second, because there is the greater risks of accidents and gun deaths occurring on a regular basis.

The conceal carry requirements here require a course that lasts 6-8 hours. Most people that want to carry are people who will regularly shoot for enjoyment and to keep their skills sharpened.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Why would you argue more armed guards could have limited casualties. But more armed civilians could not?

Or as Tim put it, why would more armed civilians be more likely to miss the shooter and kill each other?

We're talking basic reasonable probabilities here, this isn't rocket science.

First off, because armed guards are trained, while civilians aren't (necessarily).Second, because there is the greater risks of accidents and gun deaths occurring on a regular basis.

Assign percentages to your assertions.

I say the odds of a civilian whether they be a contractor or navy personnel of shooting an innocent bystander are < 1%

I would put the same odds for a police officer to do the same, you want to argue the odds are even less than the above I'd normally ask for proof but to satisfy you, fine but they are still both < 1% chance unless you can prove otherwise.

I say the odds of killing an innocent bystander are far less, say in 1 in 10,000 for both sets of gun carriers.

You can't possibly think there is a greater chance that they accidentally kill a bystander than shoot Aaron Alexis do you? Has that ever happened in one of these mass shootings, what you are clinging on to here?

You can even argue there is an equal chance an innocent bystander gets shot, isn't that better than having 18 other people by Alexis get intentionally shot with half of them killed? If it means Alexis could commit suicide just for being shot (not even killed) it seems like a fair trade off. I still think we are worlds apart though if you think there's an equal chance an innocent bystander gets shot than the intended target (Alexis).

Weren't you the one arguing in the other thread after Sandy Hook that if by limiting magazines from 20 to 7 if it could save just 1 life wouldn't it be worth it? You are sounding quite the hypocrite right now.

 

[timschochet]

Why would you argue more armed guards could have limited casualties. But more armed civilians could not?

Or as Tim put it, why would more armed civilians be more likely to miss the shooter and kill each other?

We're talking basic reasonable probabilities here, this isn't rocket science.

First off, because armed guards are trained, while civilians aren't (necessarily).Second, because there is the greater risks of accidents and gun deaths occurring on a regular basis.

Assign percentages to your assertions.

I say the odds of a civilian whether they be a contractor or navy personnel of shooting an innocent bystander are < 1%

I would put the same odds for a police officer to do the same, you want to argue the odds are even less than the above I'd normally ask for proof but to satisfy you, fine but they are still both < 1% chance unless you can prove otherwise.

I say the odds of killing an innocent bystander are far less, say in 1 in 10,000 for both sets of gun carriers.

You can't possibly think there is a greater chance that they accidentally kill a bystander than shoot the shooter do you? Has that ever happened in one of these mass shootings, what you are clinging on to here?

You can even argue there is an equal chance an innocent bystander gets shot, isn't that better than having 18 other people by the shooter get intentionally shot with half of them killed? If it means the shooter could commit suicide just for being shot (not even killed) it seems like a fair trade off. I still think we are worlds apart though if you think there's an equal chance an innocent bystander gets shot than the intended target (the shooter).

Weren't you the one arguing in the other thread after Sandy Hook that if by limiting magazines from 20 to 7 if it could save just 1 life wouldn't it be worth it? You are sounding quite the hypocrite right now.

I'm not a hypocrite at all, because in that case I believed we could have saved more lives. In this case, I believe it will cost more lives.

If you don't understand why an installation with armed guards would not want civilians walking around with concealed weapons, and why that situation would lead to more casualties rather than less, then I don't know how to explain it to you.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

If you don't understand why an installation with armed guards would not want civilians walking around with concealed weapons, and why that situation would lead to more casualties rather than less, then I don't know how to explain it to you.

- Ft. Hood: 13 died

- Washington Navy Yard: 12 died

How many more lives must be lost?

And you failed to assign percentages, which means you are basing your decisions on feelings and emotions instead of facts and logic

.

 

[timschochet]

Just to clarify: I have no problem with private citizens carrying concealed weapons, if it makes them feel safer. I don't have a problem with eliminating a certain amount of gun free zones- some of them don't make sense. Others do.

But I have a real problem with someone telling me that I will be safer if more private citizens are armed around me. And I have an even bigger problem with the notion that security installations which already have armed guards would be safer if private citizens were allowed to carry their own firearms within those installations at the same time. That's an absurd argument, no matter how many times it's presented.

 

[DrJ]

Just to clarify: I have no problem with private citizens carrying concealed weapons, if it makes them feel safer. I don't have a problem with eliminating a certain amount of gun free zones- some of them don't make sense. Others do.

But I have a real problem with someone telling me that I will be safer if more private citizens are armed around me. And I have an even bigger problem with the notion that security installations which already have armed guards would be safer if private citizens were allowed to carry their own firearms within those installations at the same time. That's an absurd argument, no matter how many times it's presented.

What you gonna do about it?

 

[timschochet]

Just to clarify: I have no problem with private citizens carrying concealed weapons, if it makes them feel safer. I don't have a problem with eliminating a certain amount of gun free zones- some of them don't make sense. Others do.

But I have a real problem with someone telling me that I will be safer if more private citizens are armed around me. And I have an even bigger problem with the notion that security installations which already have armed guards would be safer if private citizens were allowed to carry their own firearms within those installations at the same time. That's an absurd argument, no matter how many times it's presented.

What you gonna do about it?

I'm gonna #### you up.