Retired Cop Kills Man for Texting (1 Viewer)

[glock]

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_pasco/a-pasco-family-says-curtis-reeves-a-suspect-in-a-fatal-theater-shooting-confronted-them-at-a-movie

Not sure if this has been posted, but it paints a picture of who this guy is.

So movie texters just kept pressuring this guy until he snapped. Every movie this guy goes to someone says "there he is....let's sit in front of him and turn on our phones...this is hilarious!"

I don't see why there would need to be a conspiracy against the guy. There are more than enough inconsiderate texters doing it for their own selfish reasons to make him snap. It's a reflection of how much we have regressed as a civilized society, and not a conspiracy.

Hey, maybe it's a reflection of how intolerant people have become.

We live in a society, and we bump up against other humans all the time. Those humans sometimes do things that annoy us.

This freak isn't a 'reflection' of anything. He's a terrible, sick, angry person that will hopefully die alone in prison after removing a 3 year-old from her father for ever. Because he sent a silent text in a theater, BEFORE a movie started.

The fact that you have been here for 17 pages, essentially blaming the victim, is depressing.

NEVER have I blamed the victim for being shot and killed.

He is however to blame for everything PRIOR to the retired cop deciding to pull out a gun and shoot him. Up until that point the retired cop did nothing wrong. It is not wrong to ask the guy to stop texting. It is not wrong to ask him again when he continues texting. It is not wrong to ask him another time when he continues texting. It is not wrong to report it to management.

It is not "wrong" to blow off the guy for asking to stop texting- especially during previews. It is not "wrong" to ignore him again. Or again...

Wrong.

 

[fatness]

The previous incident in the theater. http://tbo.com/pasco-county/pasco-couple-said-they-also-had-texting-run-in-with-curtis-reeves-20140115/

The couple was interviewed separately by detectives Tuesday. Each was questioned about their experience for nearly an hour, they said.

During that same instance, the phone of a man who sat in front of the Dixon's activated. There was no ringtone or vibration, just the light, Jamira Dixon said.

“When (the man) leaned over, he said, 'Can you please, please turn that off. It's really disturbing me,'” Jamira Dixon said. “And he was just really upset about it. It wasn't a good experience at all.”

When the movie ended, Jamira Dixon took the kids to the bathroom and Michael Dixon waited nearby. The man glared at Michael Dixon and did the same as Jamira Dixon came out of the bathroom and waited for the kids to come out, they said. Michael Dixon said it felt as if the man was trying to provoke a fight.

The movie's over, the angry guy can't let it go, he follows them and their kids to the bathroom.

Good think Michael Dixon had some sense and didn't pull a gun on him because he felt threatened.

 

[The Commish]

What's truly scary about JoJo's comments is that there's a lot of people who share his views.

What do you mean by "a lot"?

Perhaps hundreds of thousands. Pro NRA types who really want to blame the victim in these situations.

If they exist, they haven't come out in droves to support this shooter. I suspect they don't and JoJo's on his little island with a few outliers.

The Omission strikes again! What part of this guy is a lunatic and deserves to be locked up do you classify as "supporting the shooter".

see icon

You have done nothing but bait in this thread, be proud of that.

openly mocking ignorance isn't "baiting"...it's flat out doing. Keep up the good work. The more you post the more we learn

 

[Politician Spock]

and took matters into his own hands. You keep ignoring that in your desire to say he did nothing wrong.

Because I disagree with the bolded. When he came back, according to numerous testimonies, the father took issue with him tattle taling on him. The father obviously had something to say to him when he returned. Now you have two people, both with issues to take with the other. How it unfolded at that point is where the testimonies get muddy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/15/ex-cop-s-shooting-of-texting-moviegoer-end-in-tragedy.html

Curtis is said to have gone out to find a manager or an usher. He returned alone, and according to at least two witnesses, he was noticeably agitated

You keep ignoring this. He didn't wait to to talk to the theater manager, went back to his seat more agitated, and took matters into his own hands.

How am I ignoreing that. I've said numerous time he came back angry. At that point he had two reasons to be angry. He was angry at the father and at theater management.

It's not wrong to be angry, even at numerous things. We know two things about his return: 1) he was angry; and 2) the father took issue at being tattled on. Outside of the that, the testimony is muddy as to what unfolded next. We know they argued, popocorn got thrown and he then pulled out a gun and killed him.

Was it wrong for him to argue when he returned? Perhaps... but we don't know if he escalated the argument upon return or the father did for being tattled on. WE DON'T KNOW!!!

 

[Godsbrother]

and took matters into his own hands. You keep ignoring that in your desire to say he did nothing wrong.

Because I disagree with the bolded. When he came back, according to numerous testimonies, the father took issue with him tattle taling on him. The father obviously had something to say to him when he returned. Now you have two people, both with issues to take with the other. How it unfolded at that point is where the testimonies get muddy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/15/ex-cop-s-shooting-of-texting-moviegoer-end-in-tragedy.html

Curtis is said to have gone out to find a manager or an usher. He returned alone, and according to at least two witnesses, he was noticeably agitated

You keep ignoring this. He didn't wait to to talk to the theater manager, went back to his seat more agitated, and took matters into his own hands.

How am I ignoreing that. I've said numerous time he came back angry. At that point he had two reasons to be angry. He was angry at the father and at theater management.

It's not wrong to be angry, even at numerous things. We know two things about his return: 1) he was angry; and 2) the father took issue at being tattled on. Outside of the that, the testimony is muddy as to what unfolded next. We know they argued, popocorn got thrown and he then pulled out a gun and killed him.

Was it wrong for him to argue when he returned? Perhaps... but we don't know if he escalated the argument upon return or the father did for being tattled on. WE DON'T KNOW!!!

It doesn't matter. You don't pull a gun out and blow the other guy away.

 

[fatness]

Was it wrong for him to argue when he returned? Perhaps... but we don't know if he escalated the argument upon return or the father did for being tattled on. WE DON'T KNOW!!!

You just changed your position from "until pulling the gun he did nothing wrong" to "we don't know what happened when he went back to his seat." Just noting that.

Why didn't he wait to talk to management?

 

[Politician Spock]

and took matters into his own hands. You keep ignoring that in your desire to say he did nothing wrong.

Because I disagree with the bolded. When he came back, according to numerous testimonies, the father took issue with him tattle taling on him. The father obviously had something to say to him when he returned. Now you have two people, both with issues to take with the other. How it unfolded at that point is where the testimonies get muddy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/15/ex-cop-s-shooting-of-texting-moviegoer-end-in-tragedy.html

Curtis is said to have gone out to find a manager or an usher. He returned alone, and according to at least two witnesses, he was noticeably agitated

You keep ignoring this. He didn't wait to to talk to the theater manager, went back to his seat more agitated, and took matters into his own hands.

How am I ignoreing that. I've said numerous time he came back angry. At that point he had two reasons to be angry. He was angry at the father and at theater management.

It's not wrong to be angry, even at numerous things. We know two things about his return: 1) he was angry; and 2) the father took issue at being tattled on. Outside of the that, the testimony is muddy as to what unfolded next. We know they argued, popocorn got thrown and he then pulled out a gun and killed him.

Was it wrong for him to argue when he returned? Perhaps... but we don't know if he escalated the argument upon return or the father did for being tattled on. WE DON'T KNOW!!!

It doesn't matter. You don't pull a gun out and blow the other guy away.

Once again, who is saying that you do?

 

[massraider]

Once again, obtuse.

 

[Politician Spock]

Was it wrong for him to argue when he returned? Perhaps... but we don't know if he escalated the argument upon return or the father did for being tattled on. WE DON'T KNOW!!!

You just changed your position from "until pulling the gun he did nothing wrong" to "we don't know what happened when he went back to his seat." Just noting that.

How am I changing my position? What did he do wrong before pulling the gun that you aren't assuming he must have done?

Why didn't he wait to talk to management?

I don't know. Maybe he didn't want to miss the movie he paid for and went back in to find new seats for him and his wife. But upon return the father took issue with being tattled on, and it escalated from there. There are a lot of maybe's we can keep throwing out and turn this thread into a 100 pages if you like. Try it yourself. Maybe this happened. Maybe that happened. If he did this maybe, then that was wrong. If he did that maybe, than that was wrong.

Ignoring all the maybes of what happened, I don't see anything he did wrong until the gun was pulled out and fired.

 

[fatness]

You're the one throwing out the "maybe"s to find something to defend about what he did.

Meanwhile we know that he involved the theater management another time to get someone to stop texting. We know that even after management intervened he remained angry and followed a couple and their kids to the bathroom. We know that he went to get management assistance this time. We know that he didn't wait for management to finish up with another patron. We know that at least one witness says he went back to his seat more agitated than when he left. We know he shot and killed the guy who was texting.

 

[Politician Spock]

You're the one throwing out the "maybe"s to find something to defend about what he did.

GOOD GOD WILL ALL OF YOU STOP WITH ACCUSATIONS THAT I AM DEFENDING WHAT HE DID!!!! PLEASE?!?!?! YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY ASSUMING I'M TRYING TO MAKE A POINT THAT I AM NOT MAKING, INTENTIONAL OR OTHERWISE!!! I CAN UNDERSTAND IT BEING THROWN AT ME THE FIRST FEW DOZEN TIMES, BUT AS NUMEROUS PEOPLE HAVE POINT OUT, AS WELL AS MYSELF, NO ONE IS DEFENDING THE OLD GUY FOR SHOOTING THE FATHER!!! THAT.... WAS.... WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG!!!!!!

Meanwhile we know that he involved the theater management another time to get someone to stop texting.

And again if that incident happened, what is wrong with doing that?

NOTHING!!!

We know that even after management intervened he remained angry and followed a couple and their kids to the bathroom.

And again, I said if that incident happened, following them to the restroom was probably wrong. But again, it's only probably. First, we only have one testimony of that incident weeks ago, not the dozens of testimonies we have from Monday's incident. Also, the bathroom part of the incident occured AFTER the movie. The testimony says he followed them to the bathroom. He could have taken his wife to the bathroom and was waiting for her. Again, we don't know what happened three weeks ago.

We know that he went to get management assistance this time.

Again, nothing wrong with doing that.

We know that he didn't wait for management to finish up with another patron.

Again, what is wrong with not waiting? You have to come up with maybe's to make not waiting wrong.

We know that at least one witness says he went back to his seat more agitated than when he left.

It's not wrong to be agitated. He had at least two reasons to be agitated.

We know he shot and killed the guy who was texting.

Yes, and THAT IS THE ONLY THING WE KNOW HE DID WRONG!!!!

 

[Limp Ditka]

You're the one throwing out the "maybe"s to find something to defend about what he did.

GOOD GOD WILL ALL OF YOU STOP WITH ACCUSATIONS THAT I AM DEFENDING WHAT HE DID!!!! PLEASE?!?!?! YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY ASSUMING I'M TRYING TO MAKE A POINT THAT I AM NOT MAKING, INTENTIONAL OR OTHERWISE!!! I CAN UNDERSTAND IT BEING THROWN AT ME THE FIRST FEW DOZEN TIMES, BUT AS NUMEROUS PEOPLE HAVE POINT OUT, AS WELL AS MYSELF, NO ONE IS DEFENDING THE OLD GUY FOR SHOOTING THE FATHER!!! THAT.... WAS.... WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG!!!!!!

Meanwhile we know that he involved the theater management another time to get someone to stop texting.

And again if that incident happened, what is wrong with doing that?

NOTHING!!!

We know that even after management intervened he remained angry and followed a couple and their kids to the bathroom.

And again, I said if that incident happened, following them to the restroom was probably wrong. But again, it's only probably. First, we only have one testimony of that incident weeks ago, not the dozens of testimonies we have from Monday's incident. Also, the bathroom part of the incident occured AFTER the movie. The testimony says he followed them to the bathroom. He could have taken his wife to the bathroom and was waiting for her. Again, we don't know what happened three weeks ago.

We know that he went to get management assistance this time.

Again, nothing wrong with doing that.

We know that he didn't wait for management to finish up with another patron.

Again, what is wrong with not waiting? You have to come up with maybe's to make not waiting wrong.

We know that at least one witness says he went back to his seat more agitated than when he left.

It's not wrong to be agitated. He had at least two reasons to be agitated.

We know he shot and killed the guy who was texting.

Yes, and THAT IS THE ONLY THING WE KNOW HE DID WRONG!!!!

my link

 

[timschochet]

If the victim actually did escalate it, that would only make my own argument even stronger. Two guys get into an argument. Who knows who started it? Who cares? Texting? Irrelevant,

The point is they're both in an argument screaming and shouting, maybe throwing stuff at each other. Maybe one of them or both are ready to swing. That's where the gun comes in. The guy with the concealed gun is pissed off and so he uses it. And we have a death. Entirely predictable.

The old NRA adage is that guns don't kill, people do. But this is a clear case where that is wrong. The presence of the gun turned a minor squabble into a death. It is for this reason that society is less safe when people carry guns around in public.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

You guys cracked this yet?

 

[Limp Ditka]

You guys cracked this yet?

If this = spock, yes

If this = jojo, he came in that way.

 

[StrikeS2k]

This is wrong because you're focusing on the very small number of events like this that we see. If you wanted we could post a hell of a lot more cases where good samaritans SAVED lives due to having a gun. But you discount those for some reason. Of course, you pretty much discount the constitution on a daily basis so I'm not really surprised that you'd discount other evidence that doesn't agree with your world view.

I watch the local news every day and I can tell you that stories of shootings where someone loses their cool outnumber stories of good samaritans saving lives with their gun by at least 100 to 1.

Untrue. For one thing, quite often someone who has a gun stops an incident before it even escalates much. You don't hear about those much. Secondly, studies have been done (and posted) that show that the number of good outcomes of people having guns far outweighs the number of incidents like this. Secondly, I suspect you're putting all gun related incidents together. There really aren't that many where someone with a gun permit goes off and shoots someone. And that's what we're talking about, right? Legally owned and carried weapons.

 

[Politician Spock]

If the victim actually did escalate it, that would only make my own argument even stronger. Two guys get into an argument. Who knows who started it? Who cares? Texting? Irrelevant,

The point is they're both in an argument screaming and shouting, maybe throwing stuff at each other. Maybe one of them or both are ready to swing. That's where the gun comes in. The guy with the concealed gun is pissed off and so he uses it. And we have a death. Entirely predictable.

The old NRA adage is that guns don't kill, people do. But this is a clear case where that is wrong. The presence of the gun turned a minor squabble into a death. It is for this reason that society is less safe when people carry guns around in public.

Again, it pains me to say it, but Tim is right on this one. This is a BIG blackeye for gun advocates, and solid evidence for the anti-gun crowd. There is no place for guns in social disputes.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

This is wrong because you're focusing on the very small number of events like this that we see. If you wanted we could post a hell of a lot more cases where good samaritans SAVED lives due to having a gun. But you discount those for some reason. Of course, you pretty much discount the constitution on a daily basis so I'm not really surprised that you'd discount other evidence that doesn't agree with your world view.

I watch the local news every day and I can tell you that stories of shootings where someone loses their cool outnumber stories of good samaritans saving lives with their gun by at least 100 to 1.

Would you agree the ratings are higher for the news stations when there is a shooting vs. when someone merely shows their weapon and no crime is committed/reported to police and all we have is 1 person's testimony of what happened? There are plenty of good use incidents for guns, 100:1 bad:good is a joke and so distorted I wouldn't know where to begin.

 

[SWC]

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_pasco/a-pasco-family-says-curtis-reeves-a-suspect-in-a-fatal-theater-shooting-confronted-them-at-a-movie

Not sure if this has been posted, but it paints a picture of who this guy is.

So movie texters just kept pressuring this guy until he snapped. Every movie this guy goes to someone says "there he is....let's sit in front of him and turn on our phones...this is hilarious!"

I don't see why there would need to be a conspiracy against the guy. There are more than enough inconsiderate texters doing it for their own selfish reasons to make him snap. It's a reflection of how much we have regressed as a civilized society, and not a conspiracy.

Hey, maybe it's a reflection of how intolerant people have become. We live in a society, and we bump up against other humans all the time. Those humans sometimes do things that annoy us.

This freak isn't a 'reflection' of anything. He's a terrible, sick, angry person that will hopefully die alone in prison after removing a 3 year-old from her father for ever. Because he sent a silent text in a theater, BEFORE a movie started.

The fact that you have been here for 17 pages, essentially blaming the victim, is depressing.

NEVER have I blamed the victim for being shot and killed.

He is however to blame for everything PRIOR to the retired cop deciding to pull out a gun and shoot him. Up until that point the retired cop did nothing wrong. It is not wrong to ask the guy to stop texting. It is not wrong to ask him again when he continues texting. It is not wrong to ask him another time when he continues texting. It is not wrong to report it to management.

It is not "wrong" to blow off the guy for asking to stop texting- especially during previews. It is not "wrong" to ignore him again. Or again...

True. But he didn't ignore being tattled on. He took issue with being tattle on. If he wasn't doing anything wrong, why would he care that the old man told management what he was doing?

Because stupid, childish actions deserve ridicule?

Asking him to stop and taking it to management when he refuses is not stupid and childish. It's the mature way of dealing with the issue. As I've said before there are other ways he could have handled it, such as a just moving to another seat. But there is nothing stupid, childish or wrong about what he did.

yes it is. It's ridiculously stupid and childish. The theater isn't his and both parties paid to be there.

Let's remember, for the umpteenth time, that the movie hadn't even started yet.

If he has no problem getting up to get a manager, then he should have no problem getting up and finding another seat that keeps him away from the annoyance.

It was the old man's world and people weren't living in it according to his rules, so someone had to pay the price.

this is exactly right take that to the bank brohans well said bromigo

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

If the victim actually did escalate it, that would only make my own argument even stronger. Two guys get into an argument. Who knows who started it? Who cares? Texting? Irrelevant,

The point is they're both in an argument screaming and shouting, maybe throwing stuff at each other. Maybe one of them or both are ready to swing. That's where the gun comes in. The guy with the concealed gun is pissed off and so he uses it. And we have a death. Entirely predictable.

The old NRA adage is that guns don't kill, people do. But this is a clear case where that is wrong. The presence of the gun turned a minor squabble into a death. It is for this reason that society is less safe when people carry guns around in public.

Again, it pains me to say it, but Tim is right on this one. This is a BIG blackeye for gun advocates, and solid evidence for the anti-gun crowd. There is no place for guns in social disputes.

He ignores the statistics. Concealed carry holders account for like 0.5 homicides per 100k. Concealed carry holders are not the problem and harping on 1 isolated incident due to a deranged ex-cop doesn't give his argument any more credence.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

If the victim actually did escalate it, that would only make my own argument even stronger. Two guys get into an argument. Who knows who started it? Who cares? Texting? Irrelevant,

The point is they're both in an argument screaming and shouting, maybe throwing stuff at each other. Maybe one of them or both are ready to swing. That's where the gun comes in. The guy with the concealed gun is pissed off and so he uses it. And we have a death. Entirely predictable.

The old NRA adage is that guns don't kill, people do. But this is a clear case where that is wrong. The presence of the gun turned a minor squabble into a death. It is for this reason that society is less safe when people carry guns around in public.

Again, it pains me to say it, but Tim is right on this one. This is a BIG blackeye for gun advocates, and solid evidence for the anti-gun crowd. There is no place for guns in social disputes.

He ignores the statistics. Concealed carry holders account for like 0.5 homicides per 100k. Concealed carry holders are not the problem and harping on 1 isolated incident due to a deranged ex-cop doesn't give his argument any more credence.

How many gun deaths per 100k is acceptable?

 

[timschochet]

If the victim actually did escalate it, that would only make my own argument even stronger. Two guys get into an argument. Who knows who started it? Who cares? Texting? Irrelevant,

The point is they're both in an argument screaming and shouting, maybe throwing stuff at each other. Maybe one of them or both are ready to swing. That's where the gun comes in. The guy with the concealed gun is pissed off and so he uses it. And we have a death. Entirely predictable.

The old NRA adage is that guns don't kill, people do. But this is a clear case where that is wrong. The presence of the gun turned a minor squabble into a death. It is for this reason that society is less safe when people carry guns around in public.

Again, it pains me to say it, but Tim is right on this one. This is a BIG blackeye for gun advocates, and solid evidence for the anti-gun crowd. There is no place for guns in social disputes.

It always pains you to agree with me.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

If the victim actually did escalate it, that would only make my own argument even stronger. Two guys get into an argument. Who knows who started it? Who cares? Texting? Irrelevant,

The point is they're both in an argument screaming and shouting, maybe throwing stuff at each other. Maybe one of them or both are ready to swing. That's where the gun comes in. The guy with the concealed gun is pissed off and so he uses it. And we have a death. Entirely predictable.

The old NRA adage is that guns don't kill, people do. But this is a clear case where that is wrong. The presence of the gun turned a minor squabble into a death. It is for this reason that society is less safe when people carry guns around in public.

Again, it pains me to say it, but Tim is right on this one. This is a BIG blackeye for gun advocates, and solid evidence for the anti-gun crowd. There is no place for guns in social disputes.

He ignores the statistics. Concealed carry holders account for like 0.5 homicides per 100k. Concealed carry holders are not the problem and harping on 1 isolated incident due to a deranged ex-cop doesn't give his argument any more credence.

What % are by guns, period?

 

[Godsbrother]

This is wrong because you're focusing on the very small number of events like this that we see. If you wanted we could post a hell of a lot more cases where good samaritans SAVED lives due to having a gun. But you discount those for some reason. Of course, you pretty much discount the constitution on a daily basis so I'm not really surprised that you'd discount other evidence that doesn't agree with your world view.

I watch the local news every day and I can tell you that stories of shootings where someone loses their cool outnumber stories of good samaritans saving lives with their gun by at least 100 to 1.

Untrue. For one thing, quite often someone who has a gun stops an incident before it even escalates much. You don't hear about those much. Secondly, studies have been done (and posted) that show that the number of good outcomes of people having guns far outweighs the number of incidents like this. Secondly, I suspect you're putting all gun related incidents together. There really aren't that many where someone with a gun permit goes off and shoots someone. And that's what we're talking about, right? Legally owned and carried weapons.

What is untrue? I said the stories on local TV of someone losing their cool and shooting another person outnumber the stories of people being saved by someone with a gun. That is a fact. Certainly there are stories of someone saving a life with their gun but if the local news is any barometer then they are in the vast minority.

I can't tell you how many of these shootings are done with legally obtained guns but I can tell you that at least half of the stories that I hear are of family members or friends getting into scuffles or murder/suicides so I am guessing a lot of those are legal guns.

 

[Politician Spock]

If the victim actually did escalate it, that would only make my own argument even stronger. Two guys get into an argument. Who knows who started it? Who cares? Texting? Irrelevant,

The point is they're both in an argument screaming and shouting, maybe throwing stuff at each other. Maybe one of them or both are ready to swing. That's where the gun comes in. The guy with the concealed gun is pissed off and so he uses it. And we have a death. Entirely predictable.

The old NRA adage is that guns don't kill, people do. But this is a clear case where that is wrong. The presence of the gun turned a minor squabble into a death. It is for this reason that society is less safe when people carry guns around in public.

Again, it pains me to say it, but Tim is right on this one. This is a BIG blackeye for gun advocates, and solid evidence for the anti-gun crowd. There is no place for guns in social disputes.

He ignores the statistics. Concealed carry holders account for like 0.5 homicides per 100k. Concealed carry holders are not the problem and harping on 1 isolated incident due to a deranged ex-cop doesn't give his argument any more credence.

His argument, and this incident as evidence are not the same. He said in his post that a change in how the incident escalated would make his argument stronger. That's true. It does. You can take the position that his argument is weak. That's fine. But this incident, and even the details of how it unfolded, make his argument stronger, even if it is a weak argument to begin with.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

So do we have a consensus yet?

 

[timschochet]

If the victim actually did escalate it, that would only make my own argument even stronger. Two guys get into an argument. Who knows who started it? Who cares? Texting? Irrelevant,

The point is they're both in an argument screaming and shouting, maybe throwing stuff at each other. Maybe one of them or both are ready to swing. That's where the gun comes in. The guy with the concealed gun is pissed off and so he uses it. And we have a death. Entirely predictable.

The old NRA adage is that guns don't kill, people do. But this is a clear case where that is wrong. The presence of the gun turned a minor squabble into a death. It is for this reason that society is less safe when people carry guns around in public.

Again, it pains me to say it, but Tim is right on this one. This is a BIG blackeye for gun advocates, and solid evidence for the anti-gun crowd. There is no place for guns in social disputes.

He ignores the statistics. Concealed carry holders account for like 0.5 homicides per 100k. Concealed carry holders are not the problem and harping on 1 isolated incident due to a deranged ex-cop doesn't give his argument any more credence.

Frankly I don't care if they're concealed or not. I just don't want them in public.

However, I'm going to take a look at some of these statistics.

 

[Politician Spock]

If the victim actually did escalate it, that would only make my own argument even stronger. Two guys get into an argument. Who knows who started it? Who cares? Texting? Irrelevant,

The point is they're both in an argument screaming and shouting, maybe throwing stuff at each other. Maybe one of them or both are ready to swing. That's where the gun comes in. The guy with the concealed gun is pissed off and so he uses it. And we have a death. Entirely predictable.

The old NRA adage is that guns don't kill, people do. But this is a clear case where that is wrong. The presence of the gun turned a minor squabble into a death. It is for this reason that society is less safe when people carry guns around in public.

Again, it pains me to say it, but Tim is right on this one. This is a BIG blackeye for gun advocates, and solid evidence for the anti-gun crowd. There is no place for guns in social disputes.

It always pains you to agree with me.

Yes, but it probably shouldn't. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

You have done nothing but bait in this thread, be proud of that.

openly mocking ignorance isn't "baiting"...it's flat out doing. Keep up the good work. The more you post the more we learn

I'm perfectly clear what the difference is, this is baiting:

Don't look now....another shooting at a middle school in NM

Maybe this will bring out 5 digit and jojo

You have nothing to offer to the conversation.

 

[Godsbrother]

This is wrong because you're focusing on the very small number of events like this that we see. If you wanted we could post a hell of a lot more cases where good samaritans SAVED lives due to having a gun. But you discount those for some reason. Of course, you pretty much discount the constitution on a daily basis so I'm not really surprised that you'd discount other evidence that doesn't agree with your world view.

I watch the local news every day and I can tell you that stories of shootings where someone loses their cool outnumber stories of good samaritans saving lives with their gun by at least 100 to 1.

Would you agree the ratings are higher for the news stations when there is a shooting vs. when someone merely shows their weapon and no crime is committed/reported to police and all we have is 1 person's testimony of what happened? There are plenty of good use incidents for guns, 100:1 bad:good is a joke and so distorted I wouldn't know where to begin.

I would say that feel good stories of someone saving a life with a gun are a rarity and are normally headlines in our local news. Stories of shootings are a daily occurrences and on weekends there are usually several.

I am sure there are some positive incidents for guns and some go unreported -- all I said is that on local news the stories of shootings outnumber the "good gun" stories by 100 to 1 and that is not a distortion. I suspect that it might even higher than that.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

This is wrong because you're focusing on the very small number of events like this that we see. If you wanted we could post a hell of a lot more cases where good samaritans SAVED lives due to having a gun. But you discount those for some reason. Of course, you pretty much discount the constitution on a daily basis so I'm not really surprised that you'd discount other evidence that doesn't agree with your world view.

I watch the local news every day and I can tell you that stories of shootings where someone loses their cool outnumber stories of good samaritans saving lives with their gun by at least 100 to 1.

Would you agree the ratings are higher for the news stations when there is a shooting vs. when someone merely shows their weapon and no crime is committed/reported to police and all we have is 1 person's testimony of what happened? There are plenty of good use incidents for guns, 100:1 bad:good is a joke and so distorted I wouldn't know where to begin.

I would say that feel good stories of someone saving a life with a gun are a rarity and are normally headlines in our local news. Stories of shootings are a daily occurrences and on weekends there are usually several.I am sure there are some positive incidents for guns and some go unreported -- all I said is that on local news the stories of shootings outnumber the "good gun" stories by 100 to 1 and that is not a distortion. I suspect that it might even higher than that.

Again relying on your local news is your problem. Also emphasizing that a "life is saved" is hard to prove, merely showing a weapon and not firing it can save a life.http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu

 

[timschochet]

As I wrote earlier, this concern about right to carry laws is a new concern for me. This latest incident, and other previous similar incidents, had been building up in mind a reaction. But I have always believed that anecdotes are NOT a good measure for getting to the truth, and in this case, I may have been guilty of doing it myself.

I just looked up some facts and statistics about right to carry, all of it easily accessible on the internet. One can always dismiss hyperbole on both sides, but it is unwise to ignore facts. Here are what the facts say:

1. In right-to-carry states, the violent crime rate is 24% lower than the rest of the U.S., the murder rate is 28% lower, and the robbery rate is 50% lower.

2. Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.

The first fact can be dismissed somewhat because it does not take into account cultural and societal differences that also likely are responsible for the differences. But the second fact, which is repeated to some extent in almost every one of the 40 states which have right to carry laws, is very significant and I think a good argument for the pro-right to carry crowd, much more so than anecdotes on one side or the other.

Therefore, while I still believe intuitively that the presence of these guns makes us less safe, the facts seem to contradict me, at least the ones I have access to. So I am withholding further judgment, and will no longer be pushing this argument as much as I was.

 

[Clifford]

and took matters into his own hands. You keep ignoring that in your desire to say he did nothing wrong.

Because I disagree with the bolded. When he came back, according to numerous testimonies, the father took issue with him tattle taling on him. The father obviously had something to say to him when he returned. Now you have two people, both with issues to take with the other. How it unfolded at that point is where the testimonies get muddy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/15/ex-cop-s-shooting-of-texting-moviegoer-end-in-tragedy.html

Curtis is said to have gone out to find a manager or an usher. He returned alone, and according to at least two witnesses, he was noticeably agitated

You keep ignoring this. He didn't wait to to talk to the theater manager, went back to his seat more agitated, and took matters into his own hands.

How am I ignoreing that. I've said numerous time he came back angry. At that point he had two reasons to be angry. He was angry at the father and at theater management.

It's not wrong to be angry, even at numerous things. We know two things about his return: 1) he was angry; and 2) the father took issue at being tattled on. Outside of the that, the testimony is muddy as to what unfolded next. We know they argued, popocorn got thrown and he then pulled out a gun and killed him.

Was it wrong for him to argue when he returned? Perhaps... but we don't know if he escalated the argument upon return or the father did for being tattled on. WE DON'T KNOW!!!

When you insist on carrying guns to movies, yes, it is wrong to be angry at little things. If you can't go to a movie without getting angry enough to provoke or start confrontations, you have no business carrying or owning a gun. Because you are too ####### angry to deal with the world on a rational level.

 

[Politician Spock]

Testimony of a theater texter

Man you have some thin skin.

HITCHCOCK: Turn Your Phones Off PSA

"Stop texting during my trailer", trailer.

 

[StrikeS2k]

This is wrong because you're focusing on the very small number of events like this that we see. If you wanted we could post a hell of a lot more cases where good samaritans SAVED lives due to having a gun. But you discount those for some reason. Of course, you pretty much discount the constitution on a daily basis so I'm not really surprised that you'd discount other evidence that doesn't agree with your world view.

I watch the local news every day and I can tell you that stories of shootings where someone loses their cool outnumber stories of good samaritans saving lives with their gun by at least 100 to 1.

Untrue. For one thing, quite often someone who has a gun stops an incident before it even escalates much. You don't hear about those much. Secondly, studies have been done (and posted) that show that the number of good outcomes of people having guns far outweighs the number of incidents like this. Secondly, I suspect you're putting all gun related incidents together. There really aren't that many where someone with a gun permit goes off and shoots someone. And that's what we're talking about, right? Legally owned and carried weapons.

What is untrue? I said the stories on local TV of someone losing their cool and shooting another person outnumber the stories of people being saved by someone with a gun. That is a fact. Certainly there are stories of someone saving a life with their gun but if the local news is any barometer then they are in the vast minority.

I can't tell you how many of these shootings are done with legally obtained guns but I can tell you that at least half of the stories that I hear are of family members or friends getting into scuffles or murder/suicides so I am guessing a lot of those are legal guns.

For one thing you said that the ratio of people losing their cool and shooting someone versus good samaritans saving lives is "at least 100-1." There is no way you know this simply by watching the news. And, since that stat has never been proven in a study, you pretty much can't have knowledge of it period.

 

[Joe T]

If the victim actually did escalate it, that would only make my own argument even stronger. Two guys get into an argument. Who knows who started it? Who cares? Texting? Irrelevant,

The point is they're both in an argument screaming and shouting, maybe throwing stuff at each other. Maybe one of them or both are ready to swing. That's where the gun comes in. The guy with the concealed gun is pissed off and so he uses it. And we have a death. Entirely predictable.

The old NRA adage is that guns don't kill, people do. But this is a clear case where that is wrong. The presence of the gun turned a minor squabble into a death. It is for this reason that society is less safe when people carry guns around in public.

Yes, because one incident proves it must be true in every case. Nice logic here.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

When you insist on carrying guns to movies

So it is wrong to fear another Aurora incident, but it is ok to fear being shot by someone concealed carrying after throwing a bag of popcorn at their head, got it.

 

[Godsbrother]

This is wrong because you're focusing on the very small number of events like this that we see. If you wanted we could post a hell of a lot more cases where good samaritans SAVED lives due to having a gun. But you discount those for some reason. Of course, you pretty much discount the constitution on a daily basis so I'm not really surprised that you'd discount other evidence that doesn't agree with your world view.

I watch the local news every day and I can tell you that stories of shootings where someone loses their cool outnumber stories of good samaritans saving lives with their gun by at least 100 to 1.

Would you agree the ratings are higher for the news stations when there is a shooting vs. when someone merely shows their weapon and no crime is committed/reported to police and all we have is 1 person's testimony of what happened? There are plenty of good use incidents for guns, 100:1 bad:good is a joke and so distorted I wouldn't know where to begin.

I would say that feel good stories of someone saving a life with a gun are a rarity and are normally headlines in our local news. Stories of shootings are a daily occurrences and on weekends there are usually several.I am sure there are some positive incidents for guns and some go unreported -- all I said is that on local news the stories of shootings outnumber the "good gun" stories by 100 to 1 and that is not a distortion. I suspect that it might even higher than that.

Again relying on your local news is your problem. Also emphasizing that a "life is saved" is hard to prove, merely showing a weapon and not firing it can save a life.http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu

That's fantastic. Now show me a link to the cases of shootings nationwide. I am guessing it is a heck of a lot more than 3 or 4 per day.

 

[Joe T]

If the victim actually did escalate it, that would only make my own argument even stronger. Two guys get into an argument. Who knows who started it? Who cares? Texting? Irrelevant,

The point is they're both in an argument screaming and shouting, maybe throwing stuff at each other. Maybe one of them or both are ready to swing. That's where the gun comes in. The guy with the concealed gun is pissed off and so he uses it. And we have a death. Entirely predictable.

The old NRA adage is that guns don't kill, people do. But this is a clear case where that is wrong. The presence of the gun turned a minor squabble into a death. It is for this reason that society is less safe when people carry guns around in public.

Again, it pains me to say it, but Tim is right on this one. This is a BIG blackeye for gun advocates, and solid evidence for the anti-gun crowd. There is no place for guns in social disputes.

He ignores the statistics. Concealed carry holders account for like 0.5 homicides per 100k. Concealed carry holders are not the problem and harping on 1 isolated incident due to a deranged ex-cop doesn't give his argument any more credence.

Frankly I don't care if they're concealed or not. I just don't want them in public.

However, I'm going to take a look at some of these statistics.

I don't want texting in public. Can you find some stats on this while you are researching.

Thx.

 

[Godsbrother]

This is wrong because you're focusing on the very small number of events like this that we see. If you wanted we could post a hell of a lot more cases where good samaritans SAVED lives due to having a gun. But you discount those for some reason. Of course, you pretty much discount the constitution on a daily basis so I'm not really surprised that you'd discount other evidence that doesn't agree with your world view.

I watch the local news every day and I can tell you that stories of shootings where someone loses their cool outnumber stories of good samaritans saving lives with their gun by at least 100 to 1.

Untrue. For one thing, quite often someone who has a gun stops an incident before it even escalates much. You don't hear about those much. Secondly, studies have been done (and posted) that show that the number of good outcomes of people having guns far outweighs the number of incidents like this. Secondly, I suspect you're putting all gun related incidents together. There really aren't that many where someone with a gun permit goes off and shoots someone. And that's what we're talking about, right? Legally owned and carried weapons.

What is untrue? I said the stories on local TV of someone losing their cool and shooting another person outnumber the stories of people being saved by someone with a gun. That is a fact. Certainly there are stories of someone saving a life with their gun but if the local news is any barometer then they are in the vast minority.

I can't tell you how many of these shootings are done with legally obtained guns but I can tell you that at least half of the stories that I hear are of family members or friends getting into scuffles or murder/suicides so I am guessing a lot of those are legal guns.

For one thing you said that the ratio of people losing their cool and shooting someone versus good samaritans saving lives is "at least 100-1." There is no way you know this simply by watching the news. And, since that stat has never been proven in a study, you pretty much can't have knowledge of it period.

I did NOT say this. I said the number of stories on local news of shootings vs "good samaritans" is at least 100-1.

It was an observation and I never said it was proven study.

 

[StrikeS2k]

This is wrong because you're focusing on the very small number of events like this that we see. If you wanted we could post a hell of a lot more cases where good samaritans SAVED lives due to having a gun. But you discount those for some reason. Of course, you pretty much discount the constitution on a daily basis so I'm not really surprised that you'd discount other evidence that doesn't agree with your world view.

I watch the local news every day and I can tell you that stories of shootings where someone loses their cool outnumber stories of good samaritans saving lives with their gun by at least 100 to 1.

Untrue. For one thing, quite often someone who has a gun stops an incident before it even escalates much. You don't hear about those much. Secondly, studies have been done (and posted) that show that the number of good outcomes of people having guns far outweighs the number of incidents like this. Secondly, I suspect you're putting all gun related incidents together. There really aren't that many where someone with a gun permit goes off and shoots someone. And that's what we're talking about, right? Legally owned and carried weapons.

What is untrue? I said the stories on local TV of someone losing their cool and shooting another person outnumber the stories of people being saved by someone with a gun. That is a fact. Certainly there are stories of someone saving a life with their gun but if the local news is any barometer then they are in the vast minority.

I can't tell you how many of these shootings are done with legally obtained guns but I can tell you that at least half of the stories that I hear are of family members or friends getting into scuffles or murder/suicides so I am guessing a lot of those are legal guns.

For one thing you said that the ratio of people losing their cool and shooting someone versus good samaritans saving lives is "at least 100-1." There is no way you know this simply by watching the news. And, since that stat has never been proven in a study, you pretty much can't have knowledge of it period.

I did NOT say this. I said the number of stories on local news of shootings vs "good samaritans" is at least 100-1.

It was an observation and I never said it was proven study.

You expect anyone to believe that you're counting how many shooting incidents there are and somehow creating a running tally, and percentage, of how many are good samaritan shootings versus people losing their cool? You're nuts.

 

[timschochet]

If the victim actually did escalate it, that would only make my own argument even stronger. Two guys get into an argument. Who knows who started it? Who cares? Texting? Irrelevant,

The point is they're both in an argument screaming and shouting, maybe throwing stuff at each other. Maybe one of them or both are ready to swing. That's where the gun comes in. The guy with the concealed gun is pissed off and so he uses it. And we have a death. Entirely predictable.

The old NRA adage is that guns don't kill, people do. But this is a clear case where that is wrong. The presence of the gun turned a minor squabble into a death. It is for this reason that society is less safe when people carry guns around in public.

Yes, because one incident proves it must be true in every case. Nice logic here.

But I never made that argument. I believe it to be true IN THIS CASE. How much this case should affect our thinking is an open question.

 

[msommer]

When you insist on carrying guns to movies

So it is wrong to fear another Aurora incident, but it is ok to fear being shot by someone concealed carrying after throwing a bag of popcorn back at their head, got it.

FYP, HTH

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

This is wrong because you're focusing on the very small number of events like this that we see. If you wanted we could post a hell of a lot more cases where good samaritans SAVED lives due to having a gun. But you discount those for some reason. Of course, you pretty much discount the constitution on a daily basis so I'm not really surprised that you'd discount other evidence that doesn't agree with your world view.

I watch the local news every day and I can tell you that stories of shootings where someone loses their cool outnumber stories of good samaritans saving lives with their gun by at least 100 to 1.

Would you agree the ratings are higher for the news stations when there is a shooting vs. when someone merely shows their weapon and no crime is committed/reported to police and all we have is 1 person's testimony of what happened? There are plenty of good use incidents for guns, 100:1 bad:good is a joke and so distorted I wouldn't know where to begin.

I would say that feel good stories of someone saving a life with a gun are a rarity and are normally headlines in our local news. Stories of shootings are a daily occurrences and on weekends there are usually several.I am sure there are some positive incidents for guns and some go unreported -- all I said is that on local news the stories of shootings outnumber the "good gun" stories by 100 to 1 and that is not a distortion. I suspect that it might even higher than that.

Again relying on your local news is your problem. Also emphasizing that a "life is saved" is hard to prove, merely showing a weapon and not firing it can save a life.http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu

That's fantastic. Now show me a link to the cases of shootings nationwide. I am guessing it is a heck of a lot more than 3 or 4 per day.

It is fantastic, and it goes to show how warped your local news is, but keep getting your facts from TV.

 

[Godsbrother]

This is wrong because you're focusing on the very small number of events like this that we see. If you wanted we could post a hell of a lot more cases where good samaritans SAVED lives due to having a gun. But you discount those for some reason. Of course, you pretty much discount the constitution on a daily basis so I'm not really surprised that you'd discount other evidence that doesn't agree with your world view.

I watch the local news every day and I can tell you that stories of shootings where someone loses their cool outnumber stories of good samaritans saving lives with their gun by at least 100 to 1.

Untrue. For one thing, quite often someone who has a gun stops an incident before it even escalates much. You don't hear about those much. Secondly, studies have been done (and posted) that show that the number of good outcomes of people having guns far outweighs the number of incidents like this. Secondly, I suspect you're putting all gun related incidents together. There really aren't that many where someone with a gun permit goes off and shoots someone. And that's what we're talking about, right? Legally owned and carried weapons.

What is untrue? I said the stories on local TV of someone losing their cool and shooting another person outnumber the stories of people being saved by someone with a gun. That is a fact. Certainly there are stories of someone saving a life with their gun but if the local news is any barometer then they are in the vast minority.

I can't tell you how many of these shootings are done with legally obtained guns but I can tell you that at least half of the stories that I hear are of family members or friends getting into scuffles or murder/suicides so I am guessing a lot of those are legal guns.

For one thing you said that the ratio of people losing their cool and shooting someone versus good samaritans saving lives is "at least 100-1." There is no way you know this simply by watching the news. And, since that stat has never been proven in a study, you pretty much can't have knowledge of it period.

I did NOT say this. I said the number of stories on local news of shootings vs "good samaritans" is at least 100-1.

It was an observation and I never said it was proven study.

You expect anyone to believe that you're counting how many shooting incidents there are and somehow creating a running tally, and percentage, of how many are good samaritan shootings versus people losing their cool? You're nuts.

No I am saying that I see a hell of a lot more stories of shootings on local news than good samaritan stories.

 

[Joe T]

If the victim actually did escalate it, that would only make my own argument even stronger. Two guys get into an argument. Who knows who started it? Who cares? Texting? Irrelevant,

The point is they're both in an argument screaming and shouting, maybe throwing stuff at each other. Maybe one of them or both are ready to swing. That's where the gun comes in. The guy with the concealed gun is pissed off and so he uses it. And we have a death. Entirely predictable.

The old NRA adage is that guns don't kill, people do. But this is a clear case where that is wrong. The presence of the gun turned a minor squabble into a death. It is for this reason that society is less safe when people carry guns around in public.

Yes, because one incident proves it must be true in every case. Nice logic here.

But I never made that argument. I believe it to be true IN THIS CASE. How much this case should affect our thinking is an open question.

You didn't? I guess I misinterpreted your last statement.

"It is for this reason that society is less safe when people carry guns around in public."

Never mind.

 

[Politician Spock]

and took matters into his own hands. You keep ignoring that in your desire to say he did nothing wrong.

Because I disagree with the bolded. When he came back, according to numerous testimonies, the father took issue with him tattle taling on him. The father obviously had something to say to him when he returned. Now you have two people, both with issues to take with the other. How it unfolded at that point is where the testimonies get muddy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/15/ex-cop-s-shooting-of-texting-moviegoer-end-in-tragedy.html

Curtis is said to have gone out to find a manager or an usher. He returned alone, and according to at least two witnesses, he was noticeably agitated

You keep ignoring this. He didn't wait to to talk to the theater manager, went back to his seat more agitated, and took matters into his own hands.

How am I ignoreing that. I've said numerous time he came back angry. At that point he had two reasons to be angry. He was angry at the father and at theater management.

It's not wrong to be angry, even at numerous things. We know two things about his return: 1) he was angry; and 2) the father took issue at being tattled on. Outside of the that, the testimony is muddy as to what unfolded next. We know they argued, popocorn got thrown and he then pulled out a gun and killed him.

Was it wrong for him to argue when he returned? Perhaps... but we don't know if he escalated the argument upon return or the father did for being tattled on. WE DON'T KNOW!!!

When you insist on carrying guns to movies, yes, it is wrong to be angry at little things. If you can't go to a movie without getting angry enough to provoke or start confrontations, you have no business carrying or owning a gun. Because you are too ####### angry to deal with the world on a rational level.

Where have i ever insisted on anything regarding the carrying of guns? Are you debating what I've said, or are you just quoting my posts to make points about guns? Because everything I'm talking about is about what happned prior to the involvement of the gun. If you want to use this incident to change gun laws, I won't stop you. The issue of human anger is even a very good argument to get the law changed. But on Monday it was not illegal for him to have carried it into the theater, even while being angry. He didn't do anything wrong until he pulled it out and shot him.

Come to think of it... I am wrong here. He DID do something wrong prior to pulling it out and firing it. He carried it into the theater. I'm pretty sure I've heard the theater had a no gun policy in place on Monday. So there you have it. He was wrong to even have it in there.

I admit it... I was wrong.

 

[StrikeS2k]

This is wrong because you're focusing on the very small number of events like this that we see. If you wanted we could post a hell of a lot more cases where good samaritans SAVED lives due to having a gun. But you discount those for some reason. Of course, you pretty much discount the constitution on a daily basis so I'm not really surprised that you'd discount other evidence that doesn't agree with your world view.

I watch the local news every day and I can tell you that stories of shootings where someone loses their cool outnumber stories of good samaritans saving lives with their gun by at least 100 to 1.

Untrue. For one thing, quite often someone who has a gun stops an incident before it even escalates much. You don't hear about those much. Secondly, studies have been done (and posted) that show that the number of good outcomes of people having guns far outweighs the number of incidents like this. Secondly, I suspect you're putting all gun related incidents together. There really aren't that many where someone with a gun permit goes off and shoots someone. And that's what we're talking about, right? Legally owned and carried weapons.

What is untrue? I said the stories on local TV of someone losing their cool and shooting another person outnumber the stories of people being saved by someone with a gun. That is a fact. Certainly there are stories of someone saving a life with their gun but if the local news is any barometer then they are in the vast minority.

I can't tell you how many of these shootings are done with legally obtained guns but I can tell you that at least half of the stories that I hear are of family members or friends getting into scuffles or murder/suicides so I am guessing a lot of those are legal guns.

For one thing you said that the ratio of people losing their cool and shooting someone versus good samaritans saving lives is "at least 100-1." There is no way you know this simply by watching the news. And, since that stat has never been proven in a study, you pretty much can't have knowledge of it period.

I did NOT say this. I said the number of stories on local news of shootings vs "good samaritans" is at least 100-1.

It was an observation and I never said it was proven study.

You expect anyone to believe that you're counting how many shooting incidents there are and somehow creating a running tally, and percentage, of how many are good samaritan shootings versus people losing their cool? You're nuts.

No I am saying that I see a hell of a lot more stories of shootings on local news than good samaritan stories.

Yes, and apparently at least a 100 times more.

 

[Henry Ford]

Also adding to henry ford: Not sure why you target a "Glock" specifically there?

It's faster than typing "Saturday Night Special"

 

[Godsbrother]

This is wrong because you're focusing on the very small number of events like this that we see. If you wanted we could post a hell of a lot more cases where good samaritans SAVED lives due to having a gun. But you discount those for some reason. Of course, you pretty much discount the constitution on a daily basis so I'm not really surprised that you'd discount other evidence that doesn't agree with your world view.

I watch the local news every day and I can tell you that stories of shootings where someone loses their cool outnumber stories of good samaritans saving lives with their gun by at least 100 to 1.

Would you agree the ratings are higher for the news stations when there is a shooting vs. when someone merely shows their weapon and no crime is committed/reported to police and all we have is 1 person's testimony of what happened? There are plenty of good use incidents for guns, 100:1 bad:good is a joke and so distorted I wouldn't know where to begin.

I would say that feel good stories of someone saving a life with a gun are a rarity and are normally headlines in our local news. Stories of shootings are a daily occurrences and on weekends there are usually several.I am sure there are some positive incidents for guns and some go unreported -- all I said is that on local news the stories of shootings outnumber the "good gun" stories by 100 to 1 and that is not a distortion. I suspect that it might even higher than that.

Again relying on your local news is your problem. Also emphasizing that a "life is saved" is hard to prove, merely showing a weapon and not firing it can save a life.http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu

That's fantastic. Now show me a link to the cases of shootings nationwide. I am guessing it is a heck of a lot more than 3 or 4 per day.

It is fantastic, and it goes to show how warped your local news is, but keep getting your facts from TV.

Your link shows that nationwide there are 3-5 good samaritan stories per day. That is great but how many "non-good samritan" shootings do you suppose occur daily nationwide? I expect it is likely close to 300.