Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Old 03-31-19, 09:46 AM
  #1376  
DVD Talk Legend
 
JimRochester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Rochester, NY. USA
Posts: 17,930
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
So when bullets kill a bad guy, they are good. When bullets kill a innocent person they are not the bullets fault?
Love how the one side is allowed to trot out killing an intruder to play on emotions, while if the other side talks about kids being shot in school we are just “pandering to emotions”.
And that’s setting aside the fact that a gun in the home makes the home less safe, not more.
For your first sentence; in both cases it was a person who did the killing, the gun and the bullets were the tools used. People can kill without guns, Guns can't kill without people.
Yes, generally when a person successfully defends themselves from harm or death by a "bad" person, we see that as a good thing. And when an innocent is harmed or killed regardless of the way, that is bad. We generally blame and prosecute the person who killed or harmed them not the tool they used. The tool they used will have bearing on the punishment received.

Second sentence. Not sure who allowed what. In this case the judge cited specific examples as to why he made the decision he made.

Third. You love to bring that up. I love the bring up the fact that your daughter is still in greater danger of death from medical malpractice or domestic violence by a factor of 10. That means TEN TIMES the number of people die from the Dr. making a mistake than a gun owner making one. There are a lot of things we have or do in the home that make it more dangerous. If we are making a decision to own one then that statistic should certainly come into play so we take all legal and logical steps to prevent accidents. It should not however be the overriding factor.
JimRochester is offline  
Old 03-31-19, 10:11 AM
  #1377  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 28,011
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Originally Posted by JimRochester View Post
For your first sentence; in both cases it was a person who did the killing, the gun and the bullets were the tools used. People can kill without guns, Guns can't kill without people.
Yes, generally when a person successfully defends themselves from harm or death by a "bad" person, we see that as a good thing. And when an innocent is harmed or killed regardless of the way, that is bad. We generally blame and prosecute the person who killed or harmed them not the tool they used. The tool they used will have bearing on the punishment received.

Second sentence. Not sure who allowed what. In this case the judge cited specific examples as to why he made the decision he made.

Third. You love to bring that up. I love the bring up the fact that your daughter is still in greater danger of death from medical malpractice or domestic violence by a factor of 10. That means TEN TIMES the number of people die from the Dr. making a mistake than a gun owner making one. There are a lot of things we have or do in the home that make it more dangerous. If we are making a decision to own one then that statistic should certainly come into play so we take all legal and logical steps to prevent accidents. It should not however be the overriding factor.
Its a false comparison. For one, guns are designed to kill. For another if that is the “test” then how many people do dr’s save verse guns?

Why are guns “special”. We treat, regulatate and restrict many products based on safety as an overriding issue. Everything from gas containers, to garage doors, to cars, to food, to beer....and yes I know guns are “special” due to 2A. But that shouldn’t mean nothing can be done to increase safety of that product.

Also, the statement about malpractice is more a statement about the state healthcare in this country than an individual dr. But we have a healthcare thread for that discussion.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 03-31-19, 11:53 AM
  #1378  
DVD Talk Legend
 
JimRochester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Rochester, NY. USA
Posts: 17,930
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
Its a false comparison. For one, guns are designed to kill. For another if that is the “test” then how many people do dr’s save verse guns?

Why are guns “special”. We treat, regulatate and restrict many products based on safety as an overriding issue. Everything from gas containers, to garage doors, to cars, to food, to beer....and yes I know guns are “special” due to 2A. But that shouldn’t mean nothing can be done to increase safety of that product.

Also, the statement about malpractice is more a statement about the state healthcare in this country than an individual dr. But we have a healthcare thread for that discussion.
We're getting back into territory where you and I will go round and round and that's not the point. You know you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. Guns are designed to kill. However they can't kill without a person behind them.

Getting back to my original intent.

California and NY, the two most liberal states both struck down versions of laws that would restrict capacity. NY's ruling was considered arbitrary and unenforceable. California's an undue restriction on the right to self-defense. Neither one so far has attempted to take it to a higher court. I posted this as an example of why I think a blanket ban on semi-automatic weapons (per another recent conversation) would never pass muster with the supreme court unless a big change to 2A happened.
JimRochester is offline  
Old 03-31-19, 12:00 PM
  #1379  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,192
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post


So when bullets kill a bad guy, they are good. When bullets kill a innocent person they are not the bullets fault?

Love how the one side is allowed to trot out killing an intruder to play on emotions, while if the other side talks about kids being shot in school we are just “pandering to emotions”.

And that’s setting aside the fact that a gun in the home makes the home less safe, not more.
Both sides use emotions on gun deaths. Don't try to tell me it's only one side. You focus on deaths where it's not self-defense (or the public's opinion is that isn't), and your opponents focus on deaths that were of the perp and/or accomplices, and the killing was sell-defense by the gun owner. You can bring in exceptional cases that make "self-defense" more controversial, but that's up to you.

In all fairness, you got your Bump Stock ban. Hasn't saved anyone since and I doubt it ever will, and now you're up in arms because people have a few more bullets in their magazine?

I think you just don't like guns.

There are more guns in homes in this country where they don't kill anyone that exponentially outnumber any guns in homes where a kid accidentally gets a hold of it and kills himself or others in the family,

I'm sure we have unattended vehicles at homes where the parent leaves the car running, and a young child gets in there and accidentally runs over the parent or another kid, or a person leaves the unattended car in neutral and rolls backward over an unsuspecting pedestrian and hills them. But I don't run around with my arms flailing about, proclaiming the next Black Plague is coming.

I blame the moron PARENT...not the car.

Your view of guns is like an extremist Republican's view on Abortion. You don't like something, and therefore want to enact your own personal law on the entire population because you believe in what's right, and goddamn it, that's how everyone else should act, because innocent people are dying...
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 03-31-19, 12:03 PM
  #1380  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 30,599
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Except of course that killing someone with a car is an accident. Killing someone with a gun is “mission accomplished”. If cars were designed specifically to kill other people, you might have something.
Draven is offline  
Old 03-31-19, 12:09 PM
  #1381  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,192
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
Except of course that killing someone with a car is an accident. Killing someone with a gun is “mission accomplished”. If cars were designed specifically to kill other people, you might have something.

You saying there aren't situations where a person used a gun and didn't intend on killing the other? If holding a gun meant you're automatically a killer, I guess you'd have something there.

I thought we'd be concerned with preventing deaths (regardless of motive). Isn't that what all this gun legislation is all about?
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 03-31-19, 12:24 PM
  #1382  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 30,599
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Originally Posted by DVD Polizei View Post
You saying there aren't situations where a person used a gun and didn't intend on killing the other? If holding a gun meant you're automatically a killer, I guess you'd have something there.

I thought we'd be concerned with preventing deaths (regardless of motive). Isn't that what all this gun legislation is all about?
A gun is designed to kill another person. We are constantly told that cops can’t “shoot the gun out of someone’s hand” like the movies. Pointing a gun at someone means you are threatening them with death.

Guns and cars are constantly compared but a car used correctly will not kill someone. A gun used correctly will - it’s literally the point of a gun.

Why gun proponents have so much trouble admitting that is beyond me. Just own what they are, for fuck’s sake.
Draven is offline  
Old 03-31-19, 02:02 PM
  #1383  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 28,011
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Originally Posted by JimRochester View Post
We're getting back into territory where you and I will go round and round and that's not the point. You know you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. Guns are designed to kill. However they can't kill without a person behind them.

Getting back to my original intent.

California and NY, the two most liberal states both struck down versions of laws that would restrict capacity. NY's ruling was considered arbitrary and unenforceable. California's an undue restriction on the right to self-defense. Neither one so far has attempted to take it to a higher court. I posted this as an example of why I think a blanket ban on semi-automatic weapons (per another recent conversation) would never pass muster with the supreme court unless a big change to 2A happened.
I assume you mean big change in interpretation.. which is what happened (and arguably got where we are today). For decades 2A was NOT interpreted for individuals right to bear arms. It wasn’t until Heller (2008) that it was interpreted that way.

And FYI I agree we will never change each other’s mind. I get it. But I hate false comparisons of guns to Dr’s or cars or anything else. Guns are unique and should be treated as such.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 03-31-19, 02:10 PM
  #1384  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 28,011
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Originally Posted by Draven View Post


A gun is designed to kill another person. We are constantly told that cops can’t “shoot the gun out of someone’s hand” like the movies. Pointing a gun at someone means you are threatening them with death.

Guns and cars are constantly compared but a car used correctly will not kill someone. A gun used correctly will - it’s literally the point of a gun.

Why gun proponents have so much trouble admitting that is beyond me. Just own what they are, for fuck’s sake.
Your point is correct (and obvious). However, as I’ve said before, I’d be happy with the same regulations and requirements we have on cars alloy to guns. Must have a license. Which requires training and testing and regular retesting. Which can be revoked. Must register and present it for inspection regularly. Must maintain it properly. Must have insurance for it. Safety regulations strictly enforced on guns and added as technology allows. Any gun that doesn’t meet safety requirements or is deemed too dangerous cannot be sold (just like we don’t allow certain cars be sold here). Etc, etc.

Anyone that compares guns to cars must support that.

Sdallnct is offline  
Old 03-31-19, 02:24 PM
  #1385  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 30,599
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post


Your point is correct (and obvious). However, as I’ve said before, I’d be happy with the same regulations and requirements we have on cars alloy to guns. Must have a license. Which requires training and testing and regular retesting. Which can be revoked. Must register and present it for inspection regularly. Must maintain it properly. Must have insurance for it. Safety regulations strictly enforced on guns and added as technology allows. Any gun that doesn’t meet safety requirements or is deemed too dangerous cannot be sold (just like we don’t allow certain cars be sold here). Etc, etc.

Anyone that compares guns to cars must support that.

I agree with all of that - should be common sense.
Draven is offline  
Old 03-31-19, 06:47 PM
  #1386  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 28,011
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/31/us/co...law/index.html

Hummm. Not surprised. Some don’t agree with people who have demonstrated behaviors shouldn’t have a gun. “It goes to far” is a lame excuse. An embarrassment.

Should absolutely error on the side of NOT having a deadly wapeapon.

And an embarrassment and racist to compare it to immagation,


Sdallnct is offline  
Old 03-31-19, 07:47 PM
  #1387  
Needs to check his email
 
mspmms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Indianapolis,IN
Posts: 13,150
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/31/us/co...law/index.html

Hummm. Not surprised. Some don’t agree with people who have demonstrated behaviors shouldn’t have a gun. “It goes to far” is a lame excuse. An embarrassment.

Should absolutely error on the side of NOT having a deadly wapeapon.

And an embarrassment and racist to compare it to immagation,
By calling it racist and comparing it to "immagation" are you referring how it reports that 32 counties have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuary, or preservation counties?
mspmms is offline  
Old 04-01-19, 04:15 PM
  #1388  
DVD Talk Legend
 
wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,658
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Deadly wapeapon -- designed specifically to kill the English language.
wishbone is offline  
Old 04-02-19, 03:27 AM
  #1389  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Very far away..
Posts: 4,445
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Originally Posted by DVD Polizei View Post
You saying there aren't situations where a person used a gun and didn't intend on killing the other? If holding a gun meant you're automatically a killer, I guess you'd have something there.

I thought we'd be concerned with preventing deaths (regardless of motive). Isn't that what all this gun legislation is all about?
If you also oppose driver's ed and driver's licenses, I guess you'd have something there.
Gunde is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 05:20 AM
  #1390  
DVD Talk Legend
 
JimRochester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Rochester, NY. USA
Posts: 17,930
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

The University of Rochester, the area's largest employer, has decided against arming it's officers. Instead it will allow supervisors, who were previously denied the ability to roam freely, to be armed and roam freely.

Full article here

Democrat and chronicle

I am one of those people that see the glass half full. Given the population and our free society, you have a better chance of winning the lottery or be struck by lightning than be involved in an active shooter or terrorist event. Son on one hand the need for arming them is questionable. The complaint about it making the policing more aggressive is unfounded. The entire SUNY system has armed officers and there has yet to be any incident that would warrant concern. Also, these are not pilots or teachers. On the other hand, these are trained and paid officers whose sole job it is to protect the staff and people around the campus and hospital. Should the longshot happen, unarmed officers will be helpless.
JimRochester is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 07:07 AM
  #1391  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 28,011
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Originally Posted by JimRochester View Post
The University of Rochester, the area's largest employer, has decided against arming it's officers. Instead it will allow supervisors, who were previously denied the ability to roam freely, to be armed and roam freely.

Full article here

Democrat and chronicle

I am one of those people that see the glass half full. Given the population and our free society, you have a better chance of winning the lottery or be struck by lightning than be involved in an active shooter or terrorist event. Son on one hand the need for arming them is questionable. The complaint about it making the policing more aggressive is unfounded. The entire SUNY system has armed officers and there has yet to be any incident that would warrant concern. Also, these are not pilots or teachers. On the other hand, these are trained and paid officers whose sole job it is to protect the staff and people around the campus and hospital. Should the longshot happen, unarmed officers will be helpless.


Except that’s not true (the last line). I’ve posted the FBI study several time were, statistically, an unarmed “good guy” is more likely to stop an armed shooter than a “good guy with a gun”. This is in part one reason the “good guy with a gun” is a myth.

As for for the rest of the article, I’m glad they are not arming teachers or doctors or such.

Sdallnct is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 02:09 PM
  #1392  
DVD Talk Legend
 
JimRochester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Rochester, NY. USA
Posts: 17,930
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post


Except that’s not true (the last line). I’ve posted the FBI study several time were, statistically, an unarmed “good guy” is more likely to stop an armed shooter than a “good guy with a gun”. This is in part one reason the “good guy with a gun” is a myth.

As for for the rest of the article, I’m glad they are not arming teachers or doctors or such.

As a guy that has faced felons, if I am facing someone armed, I would rather be armed. That statistic is biased because most of the time, an unarmed person is the first to confront the perpetrator. Many times when an armed person confronts the perpetrator, he kills himself so the "good person with the gun" isn't given credit.

Last edited by JimRochester; 04-24-19 at 02:29 PM.
JimRochester is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 02:11 PM
  #1393  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posts: 19,165
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

The link you posted above is just an Amazon image for some Bushnell binoculars. I'm curious to read the actual link if you have it.
Dan is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 02:32 PM
  #1394  
DVD Talk Legend
 
JimRochester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Rochester, NY. USA
Posts: 17,930
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

The University of Rochester will not add armed officers to its public safety detail, but will allow supervisors carrying firearms to move freely on campus, Interim President Richard Feldman announced Monday.
Feldman was considering a controversial proposal from Public Safety Chief Mark Fischer, who had recommended adding armed officers to the river campus, the Eastman School of Music and university property in the 19th Ward. The proposal led to fear of overactive policing, particularly against students of color. The Minority Students Advisory Board had protested the idea. In his decision Monday, Feldman said allowing armed supervisors to move about freely would “allow (them) to provide oversight more effectively” and help build trust. The UR Public Safety Review Board as well as an advisory committee established to evaluate Fischer’s proposal both approved of that component. There are 16 such “supervisors,” university spokeswoman Sara Miller said. They are not typically out on patrol on campus and, until now, could not respond to any calls except those requiring “possible life-saving action,” nor attend meetings or special events on campus. Some dissenting members of the advisory committee asked why the supervisors couldn’t simply leave their weapons behind when they went to meetings, and suggested instead instituting a system of granting specific dispensations rather than allowing the gun-carrying supervisors complete access to the campus. Adding armed officers to campus, on the other hand, spurred protests on campus and proved more divisive within the formal oversight committees. Feldman noted that an armed guard already operates at the University of Rochester Medical Center, apparently without incident, but acknowledged “the testimony of members of our community that they will experience the increase of armed DPS officers as a hostile act that will fill them with fear and apprehension about the place where they live, work, and study.”
Adding armed officers would be a mistake, he said, “in the face of the concerns and fears that have been expressed and in the absence of a consensus in support.” To alleviate concerns over potential mass shooting incidents and other situations where armed officers would be useful, Feldman recommended a series of other steps to consider, including reviewing campus lighting, security camera placement and active shooter training. He also recommended a student advisory board to the Department of Public Safety and a liaison to the LGBTQ community on campus. Much of that work will be continued under incoming President Sarah Mangelsdorf, who will take over this summer.
[email protected]
JimRochester is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 04:22 PM
  #1395  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 28,011
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Originally Posted by JimRochester View Post

As a guy that has faced felons, if I am facing someone armed, I would rather be armed. That statistic is biased because most of the time, an unarmed person is the first to confront the perpetrator. Many times when an armed person confronts the perpetrator, he kills himself so the "good person with the gun" isn't given credit.
It’s not “biased” it’s simply a fact. The unarmed stop the armed MORE than the armed stop the armed.

And ur now moving the goalpost. You said an unarmed person would be “worthless”. Now your saying you would “rather...”. You just went off the playing field.

Ill have to grab the study again. But, I don’t believe you have any stats to back up your claim. Your just guessing. Or do you have a stat or study that show if
you include the “forced” suicide by a “good guy with a gun” it flips that stat?
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 04-25-19, 05:14 AM
  #1396  
DVD Talk Legend
 
JimRochester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Rochester, NY. USA
Posts: 17,930
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Although I appreciate you actually having taken the time to read something like that, it is no surprise that you came up with your own pre-determined conclusion. I have taken two active shooter courses. One at the academy and the one the FBI now teaches. These are the LEO courses, not the civilian versions. So of course I see it from my perspective and what I was taught.

Unarmed stop more than armed because there are many more of them. Unfortunately what makes that possible is that the shooter is so preoccupied with everything at his 11,12, and 1, he loses track of his 4, 6, and 8 o'clock positions. In other words, without all those ripe targets in front of him people can't attack the rear or sides. Once they are faced with armed opposition the situation changes. As we know, calling the police is important but in the meantime there are many minutes people are exposed. Security people on a campus that size can be many minutes away by foot. So yes, hopefully someone unarmed can stop it before the police arrive. But they must rely on a person being tunnel-visioned in front of them. The best time is when they are reloading or switching guns.

If you are already in the building and can assist, they teach to flank and out maneuver. If you are not already in and unarmed they would rather you stay outside to keep people unaware from entering, Keep the paths clear or emergency personnel. And be a witness. If you enter the situation unknowing if you will be in front of him or behind him, and your vest will not stop rifle rounds, you are simply offering another target in the hopes of saving others.

Most of these people have death wishes, so a good number of them when faced with armed opposition choose to off themselves. Those are classified as self inflicted not as being stopped by an armed confrontation. So of course the stops by unarmed will outnumber the stops by armed. The unarmed people are always right there.

The toughest thing to get over for me was the wounded. I never really thought about prior to training. If you enter an active shooter or terrorist scenario, there will be many wounded. We are taught not to stop. You literally have to step right over wounded people begging for help. The reason is that the first people on scene MUST stop the aggression first. If you stop for the wounded you will be overwhelmed immediately. We also have to be on the lookout for accomplices. Most active shooters are loners. But the terrorists might plant a helper among the wounded to attack the first wave of responders.
JimRochester is offline  
Old 04-25-19, 07:43 AM
  #1397  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 28,011
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Originally Posted by JimRochester View Post
Although I appreciate you actually having taken the time to read something like that, it is no surprise that you came up with your own pre-determined conclusion. I have taken two active shooter courses. One at the academy and the one the FBI now teaches. These are the LEO courses, not the civilian versions. So of course I see it from my perspective and what I was taught.

Unarmed stop more than armed because there are many more of them. Unfortunately what makes that possible is that the shooter is so preoccupied with everything at his 11,12, and 1, he loses track of his 4, 6, and 8 o'clock positions. In other words, without all those ripe targets in front of him people can't attack the rear or sides. Once they are faced with armed opposition the situation changes. As we know, calling the police is important but in the meantime there are many minutes people are exposed. Security people on a campus that size can be many minutes away by foot. So yes, hopefully someone unarmed can stop it before the police arrive. But they must rely on a person being tunnel-visioned in front of them. The best time is when they are reloading or switching guns.

If you are already in the building and can assist, they teach to flank and out maneuver. If you are not already in and unarmed they would rather you stay outside to keep people unaware from entering, Keep the paths clear or emergency personnel. And be a witness. If you enter the situation unknowing if you will be in front of him or behind him, and your vest will not stop rifle rounds, you are simply offering another target in the hopes of saving others.

Most of these people have death wishes, so a good number of them when faced with armed opposition choose to off themselves. Those are classified as self inflicted not as being stopped by an armed confrontation. So of course the stops by unarmed will outnumber the stops by armed. The unarmed people are always right there.

The toughest thing to get over for me was the wounded. I never really thought about prior to training. If you enter an active shooter or terrorist scenario, there will be many wounded. We are taught not to stop. You literally have to step right over wounded people begging for help. The reason is that the first people on scene MUST stop the aggression first. If you stop for the wounded you will be overwhelmed immediately. We also have to be on the lookout for accomplices. Most active shooters are loners. But the terrorists might plant a helper among the wounded to attack the first wave of responders.
While I appreciate the explanation and very respectful and appreciate what you do, I don’t appreciate the condescending tone of “pre-determined” remark.

First, I’ll again ask for a study that backs your claim that If you include “forced suicide” (shooters facing good guys with a gun) good guys with a gun stop more active shoots than those without guns. You said you appreciate my reading something like this (a study from the FBI) so give me another study that supports your claim,

Second, your original statement was that an unarmed guard was useless when faced with an active shooter. That is simply false. As the study clearly shows, unarmed people can and do in fact stop active shooters. Period. That’s not a debate. Yet you call them “useless”. Are you sure I’m the one with pre-determined outcomes?

Third, if you like, I can post more studies where guns make the environment more dangerous, not less. So to suggest my study was biased (wait is it biased or did I have a pre-determines outcome for it?). As someone in the know, you are well aware a gun in the home makes the home less safe, not more. I’ve posted many a study to back this. Now that is not the same as what we are talking about (armed professionals), but we have plenty of examples of armed professionals causing harm or not helping (recent school shooting), and here,

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/video...himself-lying/

Fourth, you continue to argue only one specific situation; that one very rare (as you have noted) moment when there is an active shooter. But what happens the rest of the time? THAT is one of my issues. Im currently in Vegas and went to a hotel late to hear some live music in their lounge. There was a guard at the front. He was NOT armed. He was in uniform, had handcuffs, flashlight and yet no gun. Just a couple years since the Vegas shooting, yet here is a guard that is unarmed. Why? Could it be it is not wise to have someone walking around with a gun when there are a lot of people drinking? Of course maybe it’s smarter to have less guns around when the police actually arrive,

Police officer accidentally kills security guard at bar - Story | KSAZ

You have stated I won’t change my mind. What have you given me that would cause me to change my mind? What studies have you provided that support your position? I don’t recall any. And least you think it would make no difference, I’ve done 180 degree flip and two very major issues I use to oppose (healthcare and MW). And I’ve made those flips through reading, study, and learning, And I’m in one of those businesses (I’m in insurance, tho not healthcare).

Last edited by Sdallnct; 04-25-19 at 07:58 AM.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 04-26-19, 04:55 PM
  #1398  
BDB
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,630
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion



Aww poor Wayne! I am guessing Ollie knows some good lawyers.
BDB is offline  
Old 04-26-19, 05:02 PM
  #1399  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
joeblow69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Palm Springs
Posts: 8,217
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

Hmm, I wonder if all that NRA/Russian money shenanigans people thought mueller was going to uncover ended up being one of those 14 things mueller sent off to a DA? And is that related?
joeblow69 is offline  
Old 04-26-19, 05:48 PM
  #1400  
DVD Talk Legend
 
cungar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,637
Re: You say Gun control i say gun rights let's call the whole thing off discussion

I can think of a way these NRA dicks can settle their differences.
cungar is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.