9 potential mass shootings stopped by armed citizens...

[TurtleDude]

Makes me feel real good about CCW. In other words, you can't train just any idiot who applies...so Shaky Susie from Streator and Rambo Ronnie from are going to be CCW next to me on the El, flipping out the first time a homeless guy asks them for change.

more silliness. People like you made these moronic charges when CCW licenses were first being enacted. you claimed there would be blood in the streets. 45 or so states later and no evidence supporting your chicken little hysteria-you continue to make such inane claims because you are terrified of honest people being armed because they don't agree with your leftwing agenda

 

[TurtleDude]

If we have to start arming teachers in ordewr to protect our kids while at school, then we have a very disturbing problem on our hands. It just seems a bit odd that no one is willing to even take a look at guns being at least a great contributor to this problem if this is our solution. Personally, I think if things have gotten this bad, why would you even want to live in this country anymore.

you are on record for wanting to ban all firearms for private ownership. SO when you make the claims you do, I just ignore them because none of your arguments are founded on a rational basis

 

[jimbo]

Yeah, great evidence!!! 9 out of more than 50 mass shootings (there have been more, but that's the number I can come up with by quickly looking up mass shootings since 97) since 1997. Less then 18% of mass shootings have been thwarted. And even then, they were not really thwarted, they were just stopped from becoming worse.. All of them could have been worse so I am not really sure what that is saying exactly. Does not seem there is a lot of evidence to support the theory that guns are used extensively to stop gun violence. And the evidence that does exist just proves that it does not happen often enough.

It is possible that many more would have been stopped if there had been more armed responsible citizens.

How many of your 50 occurred in gun free zones?

Columbine, Newtown, Aurora, Ft Hood, DC Navel Base, Va Tech, for starters.

 

[Capster78]

It is possible that many more would have been stopped if there had been more armed responsible citizens.

How many of your 50 occurred in gun free zones?

Columbine, Newtown, Aurora, Ft Hood, DC Navel Base, Va Tech, for starters.

So you wish to make gun ownership mandatory for all citizens? You don't think everyone who wants a gun owns one? Can you post some type of testimony from anyone in the above shootings you mention who said that they were denied the right to own a gun, and as a result, were not able to shoot the suspects?

 

[jimbo]

So you wish to make gun ownership mandatory for all citizens? You don't think everyone who wants a gun owns one? Can you post some type of testimony from anyone in the above shootings you mention who said that they were denied the right to own a gun, and as a result, were not able to shoot the suspects?

You make no sense. Nowhere did I say I wanted mandatory gun ownership for all citizens. I fear irresponsible possession, which is why I carry responsibiliy.

In the case of the recent shootings I mentioned, it was not the right to own that is in question. It is the right to bear. Very few guns have stopped a potential situation when locked in a safe or left at home due to gun free zones.

 

[Capster78]

You make no sense. Nowhere did I say I wanted mandatory gun ownership for all citizens. I fear irresponsible possession, which is why I carry responsibiliy.

In the case of the recent shootings I mentioned, it was not the right to own that is in question. It is the right to bear. Very few guns have stopped a potential situation when locked in a safe or left at home due to gun free zones.

So where is testimony form anyone involved in these shootings that if they had their gun on them, they would have stopped the shooters?

 

[TurtleDude]

So you wish to make gun ownership mandatory for all citizens? You don't think everyone who wants a gun owns one? Can you post some type of testimony from anyone in the above shootings you mention who said that they were denied the right to own a gun, and as a result, were not able to shoot the suspects?

why do you misstate what he said. people who are terrified of guns and project their fears on others should not be owning guns.

YOu ought to learn about Luby's in Texas where a lady doctor testified exactly to that fact

Suzanna Hupp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Capster78]

why do you misstate what he said. people who are terrified of guns and project their fears on others should not be owning guns.

YOu ought to learn about Luby's in Texas where a lady doctor testified exactly to that fact

Suzanna Hupp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wait a minute, she survived the incident by.... escaping the gunman while her father rushed the gunman and was killed. Who's to say that if she had tried to shoot the gunman, she would not have also been killed. Pure speculation here. It seems as if the gunman came upon the quick enough for them not to excape. If she had the gun in her purse do you honestly think she would have had time to reach into her purse, retrieve the gun and shoot the gunman if she did not have time to escape the gunmans initial attack without being shot?

 

[TurtleDude]

Wait a minute, she survived the incident by.... escaping the gunman while her father rushed the gunman and was killed. Who's to say that if she had tried to shoot the gunman, she would not have also been killed. Pure speculation here. It seems as if the gunman came upon the quick enough for them not to excape. If she had the gun in her purse do you honestly think she would have had time to reach into her purse, retrieve the gun and shoot the gunman if she did not have time to escape the gunmans initial attack without being shot?

you always will pretend that the worst case will happen when someone has a gun in order to justify your own fears because you project what you would have done.

 

[Capster78]

you always will pretend that the worst case will happen when someone has a gun in order to justify your own fears because you project what you would have done.

I am just pointing out the logcal falicies in your argument. Not my problem that you can not refute them.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am just pointing out the logcal falicies in your argument. Not my problem that you can not refute them.

the only logical failings is yours-dozens were killed because no one could fire back. and you pretend it would have been worse if someone could have. We get the fact you are terrified of guns. we get the fact that you think if all guns were banned

1) criminals wouldn't have them

2) that there would be no huge costs associated with telling 100 million americans they will go to jail if they don't comply with your pie in the sky idiocy

 

[Capster78]

the only logical failings is yours-dozens were killed because no one could fire back. and you pretend it would have been worse if someone could have. We get the fact you are terrified of guns. we get the fact that you think if all guns were banned

1) criminals wouldn't have them

2) that there would be no huge costs associated with telling 100 million americans they will go to jail if they don't comply with your pie in the sky idiocy

And you ignore the fact that the very laws that allow people to own guns, are the same laws that put enough weapons on the streets to make it nearly impossible to keep them out of the hands of people that are committing these crimes. Making guns more accessible, simply makes it harder to control who gets ahold of them.

 

[Harshaw]

And you ignore the fact that the very laws that allow people to own guns, are the same laws that put enough weapons on the streets to make it nearly impossible to keep them out of the hands of people that are committing these crimes. Making guns more accessible, simply makes it harder to control who gets ahold of them.

Yes, we know; you want to give up liberty for safety.

It's telling that you see the absence of a law against something as the law "allowing" something. Apparently you see freedom as whatever crumbs the government lets fall from the table when they govern. This is consistent with what I said above. In any case, your entire concept of liberty is faulty.

 

[TurtleDude]

And you ignore the fact that the very laws that allow people to own guns, are the same laws that put enough weapons on the streets to make it nearly impossible to keep them out of the hands of people that are committing these crimes. Making guns more accessible, simply makes it harder to control who gets ahold of them.

that is moronic. its illegal for criminals to own guns

Your goal is to strip 10,000 honest people of weapons hoping it will deprive one or two inept criminals of having guns and you never ever admit that such a method will cause far more problems than it will solve

you haven't figured out that guns in the hands of good people DECREASE Crimes, while guns in the hands of people who cannot LEGALLY own them cause problems but your solution is far more likely to decrease the former than the latter.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes, we know; you want to give up liberty for safety.

It's telling that you see the absence of a law against something as the law "allowing" something. Apparently you see freedom as whatever crumbs the government lets fall from the table when they govern. This is consistent with what I said above. In any case, your entire concept of liberty is faulty.

I think Capster should be the one charged with knocking down doors to seize guns when his dream laws are passed

 

[Capster78]

that is moronic. its illegal for criminals to own guns

Your goal is to strip 10,000 honest people of weapons hoping it will deprive one or two inept criminals of having guns and you never ever admit that such a method will cause far more problems than it will solve

you haven't figured out that guns in the hands of good people DECREASE Crimes, while guns in the hands of people who cannot LEGALLY own them cause problems but your solution is far more likely to decrease the former than the latter.

I see no evidence of that at all. I would argue that the increase in guns has increased the likelyhood that someone who is not suppose to own a gun can get ahold of one. There are laws that make it illegal for many of these people who get ahold of guns, but they still manage to get ahold of them. The reason is, they are so easily accessible. All guns that get into the hands of people who should not own them, are acquired legally at some point. So any amount of violence that, by chance, happens to be thwarted by a legal gun owner will be and is vastly outnumbered by people who commit crimes simply because guns are so easy to acquire.

 

[TurtleDude]

I see no evidence of that at all. I would argue that the increase in guns has increased the likelyhood that someone who is not suppose to own a gun can get ahold of one. There are laws that make it illegal for many of these people who get ahold of guns, but they still manage to get ahold of them. The reason is, they are so easily accessible. All guns that get into the hands of people who should not own them, are acquired legally at some point. So any amount of violence that, by chance, happens to be thwarted by a legal gun owner will be and is vastly outnumbered by people who commit crimes simply because guns are so easy to acquire.

you don't see it because you are willfully blind to the obvious. narcotics are 100% illegal, there is no legitimate market for crack or cocaine or heroin.

and you ignore the damage of punishing 10,000 honest people to get one gun away from one criminal.

That makes people like you supporters of criminals

 

[Capster78]

you don't see it because you are willfully blind to the obvious. narcotics are 100% illegal, there is no legitimate market for crack or cocaine or heroin.

and you ignore the damage of punishing 10,000 honest people to get one gun away from one criminal.

That makes people like you supporters of criminals

Supporters of criminals... I am not the one making it easy to acquire their weapon of choice.

 

[Harshaw]

Supporters of criminals... I am not the one making it easy to acquire their weapon of choice.

So how does the market for 100% illegal drugs measure in the billions?

 

[Capster78]

So how does the market for 100% illegal drugs measure in the billions?

You can't compare drugs to guns. Drugs are relatively cheap to grow and anyone can grow drugs. Very few people have the means to MFR guns, which is why locally MFR'ed guns are not what we find when we see crimes involving guns.

 

[Harshaw]

You can't compare drugs to guns.

You can when the argument is that legal ownership of something is the reason there's so much illegal ownership of it.

Drugs are relatively cheap to grow and anyone can grow drugs. Very few people have the means to MFR guns, which is why locally MFR'ed guns are not what we find when we see crimes involving guns.

Very few hard drugs can be grown in the United States for climate reasons, and nearly none of them actually are. Yet, they are prevalent.

 

[Capster78]

You can when the argument is that legal ownership of something is the reason there's so much illegal ownership of it.

Its illegal to own nuclear weapons to.. why don't we see them everywhere, because there are few people with the means to MFR them, and if they did have the means, it would be easy to identify the location of where they were being made. Just like it would be fairly easy to locate an illegal gun MFR.

Very few hard drugs can be grown in the United States for climate reasons, and nearly none of them actually are. Yet, they are prevalent.

Very few hard drugs can be MFR'ed here because they would be easily detected. Not because they can't be grown here. They are grown in places where governments have very little or no ability to stop it.

Not to mention, do you realize how hard it would be to evade police while trying to MFR illegal guns. How exactly do you quickly move equipment to MFR guns without being detected. Ever try to move a machine shop on a whim...

 

[MaggieD]

Yeah, great evidence!!! 9 out of more than 50 mass shootings (there have been more, but that's the number I can come up with by quickly looking up mass shootings since 97) since 1997. Less then 18% of mass shootings have been thwarted. And even then, they were not really thwarted, they were just stopped from becoming worse.. All of them could have been worse so I am not really sure what that is saying exactly. Does not seem there is a lot of evidence to support the theory that guns are used extensively to stop gun violence. And the evidence that does exist just proves that it does not happen often enough.

That bolded line? I absolutely agree. If it were not for Helpless Victim Zones, a lot more mass shooters would be dropped where they stand.

 

[MACS-24]

You can't compare drugs to guns. Drugs are relatively cheap to grow and anyone can grow drugs. Very few people have the means to MFR guns, which is why locally MFR'ed guns are not what we find when we see crimes involving guns.

I would love to see some supporting evidence in any those claims.

By the way you just compared drugs and guns.

 

[Harshaw]

Its illegal to own nuclear weapons to.. why don't we see them everywhere, because there are few people with the means to MFR them, and if they did have the means, it would be easy to identify the location of where they were being made. Just like it would be fairly easy to locate an illegal gun MFR.

Very few hard drugs can be MFR'ed here because they would be easily detected. Not because they can't be grown here. They are grown in places where governments have very little or no ability to stop it.

You are torpedoing your own argument. These drugs are plentiful despite all of this.