Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
True Dat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No discussion on the theater shooting?
- Thread starter zitothebrave
- Start date
True Dat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
You really are a moron.
That question and answer would not contradict anything. It is a completely different situation than what's being discussed. At the movie theater, or pretty much any mass shooting ever, there scenario isn't simply "one guy with a gun, the other ONE PERSON (mass shooting = ????) with or without a gun???" You're putting the situation at hand in a vacuum. I don't know how many different ways I can this. I get the silly point you're trying to make, but it is NOT APPLICABLE to the movie theater shooting, or any other mass shooting. Therefore, it is not relevant. Yet, you won't move on - this is all you've got, and I guess you truly feel you've made a point. I think you've made a statement, that's for sure - but certainly not the one you intended to make. It's a statement you've made regularly on here. And this statement is my first sentence.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
the daily show had a lobby group on once that was actually lobby gov'ts to allow suppressors easier to the general public for this exact reason
seriously
sturg33
I
So you wouldn't want a gun in the simple question outlined above... OK
Go smoke some pot and calm down
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
I don't know about using a weapon. But that's not really the issue. The issue is more about situation management than marksmanship.
sturg33
I
I have an open carry license… and am pretty good with the shot. Nothing special or anything, but unlike yeezus, I'd want my weapon if someone is ready to shoot me.
Tapate50
Well-known member
I wasn't just referring to marksmanship at all. It just seems like guns are the end all be all when the bad guys have one but when the good guys have one they are just ineffective and a innocents killer. You cannot have it both ways. Just not much informed opinion here is all.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
The situation brought up where people discussed innocents being killed was one where there was someone who was heavily armed, heavily armored and threw tear gas into the crowd in a dark movie. Someone having a gun in that situation, saying he could have put that guy down is someone who's not in touch with reality.
I'm sure there are times where someone carrying can save lives, I'm sure there are times it costs lives. Could continue on but it's pointless since everyone has their mind made up.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
I guess what I'm saying is a bad guy with the element of surprise has a tremendous advantage that would be difficult to overcome. It's clearly different if I would be carrying (and I don't plan on it) and see a guy walking fifty yards away brandishing a handgun. In the latter instance, I can react and a gun would be effective. But if a guy with a gun gets a drop on someone, it's probably not going to matter whether or not he is carrying. Try to draw, you're probably dead. But again it will depend on the environment in which the perpetrator attacks.
Why are there no shootings at a gun show? Because that's where you can get guns without a background check and your stray oddball doesn't want that source to dry up. Halfway kidding.
sturg33
I
You're argument is that having a gun may be of little use to you.
My argument is not having a gun will definitely be no use to you.
But any day now, there will be a shooting at a gun show. It's gotta happen with all those dumb aggressive southerners having guns
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
And I just see that as a distinction without a difference in the situation we're discussing.
Bc you can't take loaded guns into a gun show. You are checked. Besides, these cowards are looking for easy targets and someone shoots up a gun show, they won't last long at all.
Why is it an assumption that the licensed gun permit holder will cause more deaths than the sicko randomly shooting up a theater?
In a crowd of 100 people in a theater, if 15 of them had a gun, you believe he would be able to take out all 15 before 1 could get shots off back at him?
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
gilesfan, a set of licensed-to-carry folks in the theater could, conceivably take a guy out. I agree that the chances are obviously better that when no one in the audience is carrying. That's simple math. One is greater zero.
And it's not about whether he could take all 15 people in your example, it's if any of them could take him down in a dark theater that will likely have people in a panic around them. Sure if a guy who is carrying is sitting 5 feet from the shooter and the shooter is shooting "over" him, it's likely easy pickings for the defense. But what if the "carriers" are all in the back of the theater? Odds become infinitesimally low that they will make any difference unless they are either an off-duty cop or retired military.
And it's not about whether he could take all 15 people in your example, it's if any of them could take him down in a dark theater that will likely have people in a panic around them. Sure if a guy who is carrying is sitting 5 feet from the shooter and the shooter is shooting "over" him, it's likely easy pickings for the defense. But what if the "carriers" are all in the back of the theater? Odds become infinitesimally low that they will make any difference unless they are either an off-duty cop or retired military.
For someone to hit a 3 foot by 3 foot target from 20 yards away is really not that difficult. You don't need to be a cop of in the military to do so. I go to the range once a year and that is simple.
Now, I understand the added stress/panic/etc could make it difficult. However, there are many instances of civilian gun holders making accurate shots under pressure.
Furthermore, if I'm in that situation (i've only be in one on one situation when someone pulled gun on me and shoved in my chest) I would rather myself and others have guns. I would put faith in the permit holding gun holder would have a better shot of shooting the bad guy than shooting pedestrians (that wouldn't have been shot by the perp)
Now, I understand the added stress/panic/etc could make it difficult. However, there are many instances of civilian gun holders making accurate shots under pressure.
Furthermore, if I'm in that situation (i've only be in one on one situation when someone pulled gun on me and shoved in my chest) I would rather myself and others have guns. I would put faith in the permit holding gun holder would have a better shot of shooting the bad guy than shooting pedestrians (that wouldn't have been shot by the perp)
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Lol gilesfan has been to the range so he knows he can take people donw haha.
Cops shoot all the time, they have a minimum standard for shooting, but you hear of them missing should be easy shots in firefights for a number of reasons, but the main one is ranges don't shoot back.
Cops shoot all the time, they have a minimum standard for shooting, but you hear of them missing should be easy shots in firefights for a number of reasons, but the main one is ranges don't shoot back.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
you want to know why i laugh and know america isn't the greatest country in the world?
this type of thinking is still held and spread by many people in this country
as if any of these stupid scenarios should be part of the conversation
180 posts of "if more people had guns, this wouldn't be a problem"
Australia and Japan etc don't seem to be having problems of shoot outs in theaters
this type of thinking is still held and spread by many people in this country
as if any of these stupid scenarios should be part of the conversation
180 posts of "if more people had guns, this wouldn't be a problem"
Australia and Japan etc don't seem to be having problems of shoot outs in theaters