- Joined
- Jan 12, 2010
- Messages
- 35,183
- Reaction score
- 44,146
- Location
- Somewhere in Babylon...
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Okay.
So let me first say, before we even get into this conversation, THIS THREAD IS NOT.
CATEGORICALLY NOT, ABOUT GUN CONTROL, BANNING GUNS, OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT.
But what I do want to discuss, is something that I’ve thought about a little bit in terms of, pro-gun advocates would say that lots of armed citizens, would stop a mass shooter, but there is one thing I do think about in terms of the reality of a situation such as the scenario I show here in my diagram.
So let’s take this mall, I don’t know where this mall is, just grabbed a layout, but let’s say for argument sake, a shooter enters the mall, shown there, and begins to open fire, all the green spots represent an armed citizen that may be able to stop it, but doesn’t this scenario represent an extreme cluster ****.
A malls winding hallways, sharp corners, people would be running everywhere, how in such a scenario, would each armed citizen be able to distinguish each other from the shooter and wouldn’t it create a dangerous situation for the armed citizens when the police arrived, as now they’ve got armed people all over the building that potentially, they can’t easily distinguish from the shooter in the chaos.
Again this is not; absolutely not meant to be about banning guns or gun control, but more, the tactical reality of what I have presented here and how it would actually play out.
Wouldn’t it appear, even if you are a pro-gun advocate, that this situation potentially creates more problems than it solves?
View attachment 67244858
It seems to me that you are trying to make a case for gun control by not talking about gun control.
It seems to me that you are trying to make a case for gun control by not talking about gun control.
There is a magic number, that certainly changes from situation to situation. And it is the number of armed citizens that make such a situation better vs the number of armed citizens that make the situation worse. I certainly believe, and it seems the case that one armed citizen is certainly better than no armed citizens. But as soon as you go over one armed citizen, it becomes really difficult to predict as it would be so situation dependent. If all the armed citizens knew who the shooter was then I would say the more the merrier. But if they were just reacting to the shots and didn’t see the shooter, then having a bunch of armed citizens could make things more dangerous.
But here is the thing. Even if you ease gun laws across the country making it so anyone could concealed carry, the vast majority of people won’t do it on any regular basis. So if you find yourself in an active shooter situation, it is unlikely to be one with a bunch of armed citizens.
Well in my experience, you would say that, because if one makes a gun thread, that doesn't praise to high heaven, the sacred gun, praises the founding fathers and talks passionately about bringing down tyrants, with tears streaming down your face with Hymn of the Republic playing in the background, it's automatically assumed to be anti-gun and that person is going to be dog piled.
I would be worried about the police. In a recent situation a shooter came into a bar and started shooting. The bouncer was armed and took the gunman down and was kneeling on his back with the gun pointed at him when the police arrived. The policeman shot the bouncer and killed him. All the policeman saw was a black man holding another down and aiming a gun at the man on the ground. even though the patrons were yelling that the man was security. In the moment the shooter lived and the "hero" died. When there is any kind of shooting, Having a gun makes you a target when the police arrive, no matter what your situation.
No, even if you did that he would see through your evil librul gun grabbing tactic. Trying to lure him into giving up his freedumb willingly. Obama seized his guns once already and Hillary almost did it again. He had to live under the brutal merciless HUSSEIN Obama era!
How can you fault his patritoic heart? My god, why do you hate 'murica? Why don't you guy buy some girl an abortion or whatever it is you EVIL Libruls do for kicks! Or go recruit some illegals to vote for your commie leaders! Big libtard bullies!
But here is the thing. Even if you ease gun laws across the country making it so anyone could concealed carry, the vast majority of people won’t do it on any regular basis. So if you find yourself in an active shooter situation, it is unlikely to be one with a bunch of armed citizens.
The problem is that there was only one armed citizen. Imagine how many less shots might have been fired if there was an armed citizen at BBand Y or Dave and Busters. In the scenario you describe, 1 armed citizen in a mall is as problematic as having an armed guard or even law enforcement personnel assigned at schools. Many people dont realize that Columbine HS actually had law enforcement on site at the time of the shooting...and they didnt engage for nearly an hour and a half. The first shots began at 11:19. The two committed suicide at 12:08. Police didnt enter the building til 1pm.Okay.
So let me first say, before we even get into this conversation, THIS THREAD IS NOT.
CATEGORICALLY NOT, ABOUT GUN CONTROL, BANNING GUNS, OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT.
But what I do want to discuss, is something that I’ve thought about a little bit in terms of, pro-gun advocates would say that lots of armed citizens, would stop a mass shooter, but there is one thing I do think about in terms of the reality of a situation such as the scenario I show here in my diagram.
So let’s take this mall, I don’t know where this mall is, just grabbed a layout, but let’s say for argument sake, a shooter enters the mall, shown there, and begins to open fire, all the green spots represent an armed citizen that may be able to stop it, but doesn’t this scenario represent an extreme cluster ****.
A malls winding hallways, sharp corners, people would be running everywhere, how in such a scenario, would each armed citizen be able to distinguish each other from the shooter and wouldn’t it create a dangerous situation for the armed citizens when the police arrived, as now they’ve got armed people all over the building that potentially, they can’t easily distinguish from the shooter in the chaos.
Again this is not; absolutely not meant to be about banning guns or gun control, but more, the tactical reality of what I have presented here and how it would actually play out.
Wouldn’t it appear, even if you are a pro-gun advocate, that this situation potentially creates more problems than it solves?
View attachment 67244858
It seems to me that you are trying to make a case for gun control by not talking about gun control.
The shooter(s) would be the person shooting people. :roll:
There is another factor. Once someone other than the shooter starts shooting - if you even just shoot into the ceiling or floor - the shooter will tend to 1.) flee or 2.) kill himself. Either way, the focus is no longer shooting people and more about the shooter's own survival to himself. So it may not even be necessary to shoot anyone, just the sound of gun shots.
As for the police appearing? ANYONE with a gun should immediately drop it and either raise their hands palms out OR lay down spread eagle on the floor face down and the gun away not in reach the moment they see police regardless of the situation. Of course there is risk coming to the defense of others when instead you could just flee.
The flaw in the OP message is a common flaw of the argument of all anti-gunners. The claim is that since there can not be certain perfection in all self defense or defense of others situations with a firearm, then no one should ever try or be able to do so - meaning just assuring a superior situation if everyone but murderers and police are defenseless.
Just so I know about what/whom you've written:The problem is that there was only one armed citizen. Imagine how many less shots might have been fired if there was an armed citizen at BBand Y or Dave and Busters.
In many of the cases, the police or armed guards are killed by a better armed shooter. What chance does a person armed with a hand gun have against a man with an AR15.
In many of the cases, the police or armed guards are killed by a better armed shooter. What chance does a person armed with a hand gun have against a man with an AR15.
Okay.
So let me first say, before we even get into this conversation, THIS THREAD IS NOT.
CATEGORICALLY NOT, ABOUT GUN CONTROL, BANNING GUNS, OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT.
But what I do want to discuss, is something that I’ve thought about a little bit in terms of, pro-gun advocates would say that lots of armed citizens, would stop a mass shooter, but there is one thing I do think about in terms of the reality of a situation such as the scenario I show here in my diagram.
So let’s take this mall, I don’t know where this mall is, just grabbed a layout, but let’s say for argument sake, a shooter enters the mall, shown there, and begins to open fire, all the green spots represent an armed citizen that may be able to stop it, but doesn’t this scenario represent an extreme cluster ****.
A malls winding hallways, sharp corners, people would be running everywhere, how in such a scenario, would each armed citizen be able to distinguish each other from the shooter and wouldn’t it create a dangerous situation for the armed citizens when the police arrived, as now they’ve got armed people all over the building that potentially, they can’t easily distinguish from the shooter in the chaos.
Again this is not; absolutely not meant to be about banning guns or gun control, but more, the tactical reality of what I have presented here and how it would actually play out.
Wouldn’t it appear, even if you are a pro-gun advocate, that this situation potentially creates more problems than it solves?
You assume every armed citizen is going to chase after a bad guy with a gun?? That would be incredibly stupid. I can’t speak for others who carry concealed, but in a scenario like yours my primary concern would my family, myself, and those in closest proximity that I could attempt to help. Beyond that I’m sorry, but I don’t intend to be “the good samaritan” mistakenly killed by police or another good samaritan.Okay.
So let me first say, before we even get into this conversation, THIS THREAD IS NOT.
CATEGORICALLY NOT, ABOUT GUN CONTROL, BANNING GUNS, OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT.
But what I do want to discuss, is something that I’ve thought about a little bit in terms of, pro-gun advocates would say that lots of armed citizens, would stop a mass shooter, but there is one thing I do think about in terms of the reality of a situation such as the scenario I show here in my diagram.
So let’s take this mall, I don’t know where this mall is, just grabbed a layout, but let’s say for argument sake, a shooter enters the mall, shown there, and begins to open fire, all the green spots represent an armed citizen that may be able to stop it, but doesn’t this scenario represent an extreme cluster ****.
A malls winding hallways, sharp corners, people would be running everywhere, how in such a scenario, would each armed citizen be able to distinguish each other from the shooter and wouldn’t it create a dangerous situation for the armed citizens when the police arrived, as now they’ve got armed people all over the building that potentially, they can’t easily distinguish from the shooter in the chaos.
Again this is not; absolutely not meant to be about banning guns or gun control, but more, the tactical reality of what I have presented here and how it would actually play out.
Wouldn’t it appear, even if you are a pro-gun advocate, that this situation potentially creates more problems than it solves?
View attachment 67244858
They are also very useful for self protection and the protection of othersPesonally I've always felt we should do away with handguns. The VAST majority of shootings and crimes are handguns, concealed weapons are ideal for crime.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?