If only they'd been armed...

[jamesrage]

Sure, because four armed and trained law enforcement officers just aren't enough!

Thanks for taking the bait.

The four trained law enforcement officers were probably busy drinking coffee and eating breakfast before their shift started, a nutjob coming into a coffee shop and shooting four police officers is the last thing anyone would picture happening. However someone shooting four people is going to draw attention to themselves. So yes a armed civilian or a couple of armed civilians could have shot the suspect while that suspect's attention was focused on shooting the four police officers and trying to get away.

 

[misterman]

The four trained law enforcement officers were probably busy drinking coffee and eating breakfast before their shift started, a nutjob coming into a coffee shop and shooting four police officers is the last thing anyone would picture happening. Someone shooting four people is going to draw attention to themselves. So yes a armed civilian or a couple of armed civilians could have shot the suspect while that suspect's attention was focused on shooting the four police officers and trying to get away.

So four armed trained men aren't enough.

 

[The silenced majority]

So four armed trained men aren't enough.

How many unarmed men would it take to subdue him?

 

[DarkWizard12]

So four armed trained men aren't enough.

Assuming that they aren't(and considering the case, they probably wouldn't be enough), what would be ur point?

 

[misterman]

How many unarmed men would it take to subdue him?

Back to being devil's advocate - none if only we had kept a gun out of the lunatic's hands in the first place.

 

[Tsunami]

Funny thread, but in all seriousness.. there is a limit to the number of armed people you can take out at once. You can obviously shoot four people at the same table before anyone fights back, but it would be hard to shoot twenty armed people in one room before at least someone reacts.

 

[ptif219]

The officers were taken by surprise attack and it happened quickly the perp made sure they had little chance to retaliate.

I would imagine a liberal state like Washington does not have concealed weapons permit. Here in Florida I have one that is honored in 32 states. In Florida that man may not have walked out alive.

 

[jamesrage]

So four armed trained men aren't enough.

They were not paying attention and surprised, being armed or unarmed in their case is irrelevant. The suspect firing on those four officers would have drawn the attention of every patron in that coffee shop and one of those people could have taken out the suspect. If those officers were only seriously wounded I do not think you would ever hear one of them go "Man I do not know why I brought my weapon that day it was ****en pointless". Regardless if your point is that sometimes having a firearm is not always going to save your ass from a shooter or that you are only doing this because someone always says if only those victims were armed it still does not change the fact that most people would rather have a fighting chance that to be stripped of any means to protect themselves. As much as I respect police officers I still have to say that most of the time they are basically historians they go to a crime scene and log everything. Police are not psychics so I would rather depend on myself for protection than to be at the mercy of criminals.

 

[John Doe]

So four armed trained men aren't enough.

How about you paint the entire picture?

The entire U.S army wouldn't be enough to kill everything if they were asleep. Get it?

 

[bowerbird]

No. Just that they aren't 100% effective, like anything else. I get tired of hearing the "if only they'd been armed, they'd be safe right now" thing.

You and me both.

It is the biggest myth

As you are aware we banned assault rifles here in 1996 - we have only had one mass shooting since then and that was with handguns - and HE was disarmed by unarmed bystanders

 

[bowerbird]

Funny thread, but in all seriousness.. there is a limit to the number of armed people you can take out at once. You can obviously shoot four people at the same table before anyone fights back, but it would be hard to shoot twenty armed people in one room before at least someone reacts.

With that you are very very very wrong - google up "Port Arthur Massacre" and Martin Bryant.

 

[jamesrage]

You and me both.

It is the biggest myth

As you are aware we banned assault rifles here in 1996 - we have only had one mass shooting since then and that was with handguns - and HE was disarmed by unarmed bystanders

How many people did that person murder before he was stopped?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You and me both.

It is the biggest myth

As you are aware we banned assault rifles here in 1996 - we have only had one mass shooting since then and that was with handguns - and HE was disarmed by unarmed bystanders

Austrailia violent assault rate since said ban:

Fig. 5. Assault Rate History for Australia



1. S. Mukherjee, et.al. A Statistical Profile of Crime in Australia
(Canberra, Australia: AIC, April 1993) RPP07, Table 4.5

 

[misterman]

Funny thread, but in all seriousness.. there is a limit to the number of armed people you can take out at once. You can obviously shoot four people at the same table before anyone fights back, but it would be hard to shoot twenty armed people in one room before at least someone reacts.

Yes, that's my point. Anyone who walks around thinking all they need is a gun and they are invincible is naive. And that means the idea that the one and only answer to violent crime is arming the good guys is also naive.

 

[misterman]

Your trend line is obviously misleading. There should be two trend lines, one for before 96 and one after. The current line doesn't seem to include the data after 2000 that shows a downward trend. And it should really be a curve - that goes back DOWN.

But of course, the biggest flaw is that this apparently measures all violent assaults, whether involving a firearm or not!

Austrailia violent assault rate since said ban:

Fig. 5. Assault Rate History for Australia



1. S. Mukherjee, et.al. A Statistical Profile of Crime in Australia
(Canberra, Australia: AIC, April 1993) RPP07, Table 4.5

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Yes, that's my point. Anyone who walks around thinking all they need is a gun and they are invincible is naive. And that means the idea that the one and only answer to violent crime is arming the good guys is also naive.

So when that savage comes with his blood egorged member in his hand, for your wife, child, etc..... It's naive to think having a gun might help you defend yourself?

 

[misterman]

You and me both.

It is the biggest myth

As you are aware we banned assault rifles here in 1996 - we have only had one mass shooting since then and that was with handguns - and HE was disarmed by unarmed bystanders

Interesting, thanks.

 

[misterman]

So when that savage comes with his blood egorged member in his hand, for your wife, child, etc..... It's naive to think having a gun might help you defend yourself?

No. Please read what I said again, more carefully.

Nice imagery though.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

No. Please read what I said again, more carefully.

Nice imagery though.

well i figured since you put our position together for us, I'd return the favor. :shrug:

 

[Caine]

Back to being devil's advocate - none if only we had kept a gun out of the lunatic's hands in the first place.

And that is impossible.

So lets move back to reality, thank you.

 

[misterman]

And that is impossible.

Just like defending yourself entirely with a single handgun is impossible. Even four policemen isn't enough sometimes.

As everyone was so eager to say when I posted this thread - nobody said it was foolproof.

But we can, and do, keep guns out of the hands of many lunatics and criminals. It is possible sometimes.

 

[jamesrage]

Just like defending yourself entirely with a single handgun is impossible. Even four policemen isn't enough sometimes.

As everyone was so eager to say when I posted this thread - nobody said it was foolproof.

But we can, and do, keep guns out of the hands of many lunatics and criminals. It is possible sometimes.

I would rather the guns be in the hands of the majority of law abiding citizens than for criminasl being the only ones able to get his hands on guns due to some idiotic fear mongering law that bans firearms under the assumption that somehow criminals are going to obey laws.

 

[Manc Skipper]

I would rather the guns be in the hands of the majority of law abiding citizens than for criminasl being the only ones able to get his hands on guns due to some idiotic fear mongering law that bans firearms under the assumption that somehow criminals are going to obey laws.

If law abiding citizens didn't have them, where would the criminals steal them from?

 

[jamesrage]

If law abiding citizens don't have them, where will the criminals steal them from?

Criminals will import them, maybe even steal them from law enforcement, or use zip guns. or some other improvised firearm.

 

[ptif219]

Yes, that's my point. Anyone who walks around thinking all they need is a gun and they are invincible is naive. And that means the idea that the one and only answer to violent crime is arming the good guys is also naive.

So what take away my concealment permit and my guns so in normal circumstances I can't defend myself. You want stories about people with concealment permits stopping crimes and saving lives?