If you are shot

[vegas giants]

No one has addressed the fact that over 90% of mass shooting have occurred in gun free zones.

You have that exactly backwards

 

[calamity]

Too bad the thread doesn't read, "if you do a shot."

 

[RaleBulgarian]

If you are shot in a gun free zone, and you didnt bring your fire arm to comply, shouldnt you be able to sue the store or group that posted the gun free zone sign. It seems only right.

If someone does sue and wins, I bet the idiot gun free zone signs would very quickly come down. Reminder, more than 90% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.

Unless the location is an official federal or state designated “gun free” zone, there is no duty for the lawfully armed citizen to comply.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Why would you even live someplace where you need a gun to protect yourself? I sure as hell wouldn't.
And is that 14 year old girl ahead of you in the Burger King line-up armed? No? She's 'way more vulnerable than you are, lives in the same place and she's not only not armed, she's not allowed to be. Makes all those grown men with handguns hidden on them look kind of cowardly, don't it?

I get your perspective however, the time may come when that “coward” with the handgun saves that 14 year old girl’s life. Factually, and sadly, that is Life in America.

 

[Mr Person]

If you are shot in a gun free zone, and you didnt bring your fire arm to comply, shouldnt you be able to sue the store or group that posted the gun free zone sign. It seems only right. If someone does sue and wins, I bet the idiot gun free zone signs would very quickly come down. Reminder, more than 90% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.

There would be far less carnage in a dark movie theatre with 50 people trying to shoot the shooter. In the dark movie theatre, lit only by disorienting muzzle flares. Yeah, that would be better.

 

[TurtleDude]

There would be far less carnage in a dark movie theatre with 50 people trying to shoot the shooter. In the dark movie theatre, lit only by disorienting muzzle flares. Yeah, that would be better.

this is based on your extensive training in gun fighting? someone walks into a theater and starts shooting, most of us can quickly identify him. Now if 10 people walk in and start all shooting at the same time-that would require a bit more fire discipline to pick a target

 

[Mr Person]

this is based on your extensive training in gun fighting? someone walks into a theater and starts shooting, most of us can quickly identify him. Now if 10 people walk in and start all shooting at the same time-that would require a bit more fire discipline to pick a target

Is your rejoinder based on your extensive training in target practice while dark against target that is shooting all around and/or at you?

:roll:




The "good guy with a gun" sometimes stops crime. That's true. The statistics about how often that happens are fudged any which way. The point is simple. Dark theatre. Someone hops on stage and starts blasting the crowd. People panic. Some run, some hit the floor, etc. And in your scenario, some well-trained gunslingers bust out death on demand. In reality, though, a bunch of scared humans with little to no no real training in "fighting" (unless this happens to be a military screening?) start blasting away, trying to guess where the bad man might be based on occasional muzzle flash.

I mean, have you been trained in "fighting"?

How much?

Night fighting?

Exercises with blanks with any way of seeing how accurate your shooting against a real moving target shooting blanks back?

How many mass shootings have been stopped by a good guy with a gun? Only thing I recall is one saying re: the Gabby shooting that he almost shot a bystander.



It's one thing to stop someone in your house. It's another thing entirely for a dark theatre to light up with gunfire as everyone else panics right the **** out.

 

[TurtleDude]

Is your rejoinder based on your extensive training in target practice while dark against target that is shooting all around and/or at you?

:roll:




The "good guy with a gun" sometimes stops crime. That's true. The statistics about how often that happens are fudged any which way. The point is simple. Dark theatre. Someone hops on stage and starts blasting the crowd. People panic. Some run, some hit the floor, etc. And in your scenario, some well-trained gunslingers bust out death on demand. In reality, though, a bunch of scared humans with little to no no real training in "fighting" (unless this happens to be a military screening?) start blasting away, trying to guess where the bad man might be based on occasional muzzle flash.

I mean, have you been trained in "fighting"?

How much?

Night fighting?

Exercises with blanks with any way of seeing how accurate your shooting against a real moving target shooting blanks back?

How many mass shootings have been stopped by a good guy with a gun? Only thing I recall is one saying re: the Gabby shooting that he almost shot a bystander.



It's one thing to stop someone in your house. It's another thing entirely for a dark theatre to light up with gunfire as everyone else panics right the **** out.

I have had hundreds of hours of training in all sorts of environments-including "force on force" house clearing drills using simunitions in lit and dark houses. The same training environments that top level SWAT teams and elite federal law enforcement officers go through.

 

[Mr Person]

I have had hundreds of hours of training in all sorts of environments-including "force on force" house clearing drills using simunitions in lit and dark houses. The same training environments that top level SWAT teams and elite federal law enforcement officers go through.

And that tells you that it'd be a plus not a minus for a whole bunch of random people with no necessary level of training - of any possible level of training - to start blaring away at a stage or an exit, wherever a shooter is, once - AND IF - they correctly identify the first muzzle flash of the shooter?

Isn't minimization of chaos a big thing in a potentially chaotic engagement?

 

[TurtleDude]

And that tells you that it'd be a plus not a minus for a whole bunch of random people with no necessary level of training - of any possible level of training - to start blaring away at a stage or an exit, wherever a shooter is, once - AND IF - they correctly identify the first muzzle flash of the shooter?

Isn't minimization of chaos a big thing in a potentially chaotic engagement?

I agree but someone with proper training would take the shooter out long before the amateurs had acted. Most CCW holders actually know how to shoot. In fact, the average CCW holder is a better shot than the average cop.

 

[Logician Man]

I agree but someone with proper training would take the shooter out long before the amateurs had acted. Most CCW holders actually know how to shoot. In fact, the average CCW holder is a better shot than the average cop.

Please provide a credible link to support this positive claim. That claim, at face value, doesn't seem to be factual.

 

[Mr Person]

I agree but someone with proper training would take the shooter out long before the amateurs had acted. Most CCW holders actually know how to shoot. In fact, the average CCW holder is a better shot than the average cop.

All I'm saying is to imagine the average person on an average day. A set of them.

Set 1 is unarmed

Set 2 is heavily armed.

I suppose we can make up numbers in between, but my point is that there is so much more potential from carnage with Set 2. There is indeed the possibility that a good shooter will be there and nail the bad guy, but there is the uncertainty about how much skill each carrying person has, with the unpredictable chaos of panic in the area. We're not just talking about accidentally aiming to low, but even getting bumped as one is aiming just as one pulls the trigger. It'd be a sea of people running, crawling, etc.



I'm not sure what the best answer is, but my gut tells me Set 1 is liable to result in less deaths over time than Set 2, if each were repeated. Obviously, none of us can conclusively prove a case on it. Can't run a controlled study.

 

[TurtleDude]

All I'm saying is to imagine the average person on an average day. A set of them.

Set 1 is unarmed

Set 2 is heavily armed.

I suppose we can make up numbers in between, but my point is that there is so much more potential from carnage with Set 2. There is indeed the possibility that a good shooter will be there and nail the bad guy, but there is the uncertainty about how much skill each carrying person has, with the unpredictable chaos of panic in the area. We're not just talking about accidentally aiming to low, but even getting bumped as one is aiming just as one pulls the trigger. It'd be a sea of people running, crawling, etc.



I'm not sure what the best answer is, but my gut tells me Set 1 is liable to result in less deaths over time than Set 2, if each were repeated. Obviously, none of us can conclusively prove a case on it. Can't run a controlled study.

Based on my review of Aurora, the shooter was easily identifiable

 

[Mr Person]

Based on my review of Aurora, the shooter was easily identifiable

Because he hopped up on stage? Come on, how can you 'review' Aurora and conclude that? You have to be assuming someone with the training/experience to have nerves of steel, identify a muzzle flash, and then fire right where he/she needed to to hit the target, all in the dark. Again, not an expert, but that has to be luck.

I was focused mainly on the hypothetical in-the-dark theatre, but it can be expanded. Let me put it this way: the more armed people, the more likely chaos will lead to extra casualties, the lower the probability that a good shot with a gun will get the bad guy in time. The dark exacerbates this.



Would there be good cases? Yes. But I can only think there would be a lot more of worse cases if a small group of heavily armed people in an enclosed space - especially if it's dark - has a contingent of armed people at various locations in the crowd, who all just start shooting at the person they think is the one with the gun.

(On that note... yet another danger: good guys with a gun mistaking good guys with a gun for a bad guy. Add more: cops showing up and seeing a shootout. What then?)





The good guy with a gun thing only works if it's a small setting where the target is neutralized quickly AND before the police show up. The more people/elements you throw in, the worse the recipe.

 

[CaughtInThe]

property rights being ignored yet again.

oh, one more thing, can i drive a tank to a football game?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If you are shot in a gun free zone, and you didnt bring your fire arm to comply, shouldnt you be able to sue the store or group that posted the gun free zone sign. It seems only right.
If someone does sue and wins, I bet the idiot gun free zone signs would very quickly come down. Reminder, more than 90% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.

If you're man enough to go somewhere as dangerous as a gun-free zone, you're man enough to take responsibility for the risks you're taking going to an elementary school or where ever.

 

[Lursa]

But what if the store located in that gun free zone is the only place for me to buy say perscription drugs I need. My health ins states I need to buy drugs at a drug store "in network".

Mail order

 

[Simon W. Moon]

But what if the store located in that gun free zone is the only place for me to buy say perscription drugs I need. My health ins states I need to buy drugs at a drug store "in network".

Sue you health insurance company for putting you in such danger.

 

[Lursa]

If you are shot in a gun free zone, and you didnt bring your fire arm to comply, shouldnt you be able to sue the store or group that posted the gun free zone sign. It seems only right.

If someone does sue and wins, I bet the idiot gun free zone signs would very quickly come down. Reminder, more than 90% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.

What if I'm assaulted, but not shot? Can I still sue?

As a female, considering disparity of force, it's very possible lethal force could be justified.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Unless the location is an official federal or state designated “gun free” zone, there is no duty for the lawfully armed citizen to comply.

Actually, there is. It's called private property rights. If you're on my property and I've posted it is a 'gun free zone' you had damn well better be unarmed or I will call the cops and press charges for trespass. You don't get to dictate your rights on my property.

 

[Evilroddy]

If you are shot in a gun free zone, and you didnt bring your fire arm to comply, shouldnt you be able to sue the store or group that posted the gun free zone sign. It seems only right.

If someone does sue and wins, I bet the idiot gun free zone signs would very quickly come down. Reminder, more than 90% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.

Logical1:

Then sue the shower and bath makers because I'm pretty sure most sane gun owners aren't armed when they bathe. Sue the X-ray technicians and the airport security folks because your not armed while being imaged or loaded onto planes. If a business or owner refuses you entry to their property because you're armed and you choose to disarm in order to comply and enter that establishment, that was your choice. You could have gone somewhere else. You own that choice and must deal with the consequences. Your gun rights don't trump others property rights.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

No one has addressed the fact that over 90% of mass shooting have occurred in gun free zones.

Logical1:

Cite some proff for this claim please. Also please define what you mean by the phrase "gun free zone".

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[OscarLevant]

If you are shot in a gun free zone, and you didnt bring your fire arm to comply, shouldnt you be able to sue the store or group that posted the gun free zone sign. It seems only right.

If someone does sue and wins, I bet the idiot gun free zone signs would very quickly come down. Reminder, more than 90% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.

So, the secret service are idiots for making Trump rallies gun free zones.



How logical, ( not so ) logical1

 

[OscarLevant]

No one has addressed the fact that over 90% of mass shooting have occurred in gun free zones.

Not true. see politifact

 

[OscarLevant]

If you're man enough to go somewhere as dangerous as a gun-free zone, you're man enough to take responsibility for the risks you're taking going to an elementary school or where ever.

So Trump rallies are dangerous?


I thought they might be.