So, the media made a lot about the Connecticut shooting, and so rightfully so..it was horrific..
Well, if a well trained citizen would have been arm with a gun perhaps some of those Innocent children may be alive today, right?

You said, no? Well, it just happen not to long ago that an armed citizen shot a would be killer and prevented another murderous rampage from taking place.

Of course the media has not widely reported this "pro gun' event; who knows why? it may be politically incorrect but it is a true story.

The lesson, get a gun, get trained, do practice, and do carry!

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/media-quiet-about-san-antonio-theater-shooting-2524596.html

They had trained security who were armed in Columbine when those shootings occured. Sadly, that did not help at all.

Also, one of the most important things they drilled into our heads in the Police Academy is that your training goes right out of the window when the situation presents itself where you have to discharge your firearm. That is why our training stated it was paramount to neutralize the offender before she or he fires their gun

We've read countless stories of Police Officers who were trained and certified in their firearms who would miss their target by as much as 20 feet when they were presented with a firefight.

When we did a mock night time raid, every single one of us missed 80% of the targets...and ones we did hit..we hit well outside the target diagrams of the silhouette...and those things weren't firing back.

This is a contemporary story of what I mean:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57502545-504083/empire-state-building-shooting-sparks-questions-about-nypd-shot-accuracy/

So, being a such a situation would you prefer to be armed or unarmed?

I think that if every adult that was authorized to carry a gun, did we would see much less violence and crime. I used to carry due to an occupational hazard, but I no longer do mainly because I much prefer a blade.

Quote from: peky on January 11, 2013, 06:23:47 PM
So, the media made a lot about the Connecticut shooting, and so rightfully so..it was horrific..
Well, if a well trained citizen would have been arm with a gun perhaps some of those Innocent children may be alive today, right?

You said, no? Well, it just happen not to long ago that an armed citizen shot a would be killer and prevented another murderous rampage from taking place.

Of course the media has not widely reported this "pro gun' event; who knows why? it may be politically incorrect but it is a true story.

The lesson, get a gun, get trained, do practice, and do carry!

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/media-quiet-about-san-antonio-theater-shooting-2524596.html

Sorry Peky,

You would not want me to carry and use a gun. I have used them before but I can not see well enough to be sure of my aim at longer distances,and I refuse to put myself into a situation that if I hit the wrong target I do not want to carry that guilt.

I prefer to disarm with my warmth and charm but sometimes i bring out the big guns: i wrap a perp up with my two bare arms and bring them to the ground.

I have two semi automatic pistols at home, but I have no desire to carry one.

Quote from: peky on January 11, 2013, 06:23:47 PM
So, the media made a lot about the Connecticut shooting, and so rightfully so..it was horrific..
Well, if a well trained citizen would have been arm with a gun perhaps some of those Innocent children may be alive today, right?

You said, no? Well, it just happen not to long ago that an armed citizen shot a would be killer and prevented another murderous rampage from taking place.

I don't own a gun, I don't belong to the NRA but at the same time I don't have a problem with people owning weapons including assault weapons. My neighbors are armed to the teeth so when the zombies come at least I know where to go

I'm totally down with the 2nd Amendment (it's wing-nuttery I'm against), but... "No."

It will take a traumatic head injury to cause me to believe that more guns are the most appropriate response to gun violence.

Is it not most often true that the most effective deterrent to evil is brute force?

Bad guys are only stopped by fear.  The only way to stop an animal is to appear to be a bigger, stronger animal. 

In a perfect world, where everyone was a good person, and did nothing but seek out peace and love and happiness, we wouldn't need guns, or nukes or any other thing to kill or protect ourselves with. Until it becomes a perfect world, it seems like there will always be a need for weapons.

The US second amendment gives the people the choice to own and make use of firearms, no more or less. It's also a choice to try to engage an active shooter or wait for the calvary (police). There is little point in speculating either way how to prevent an event where the criminal has chosen in advance and has the upper hand as the one to throw the first punch so to speak.

This is one area where I'm a shrinking violet. I don't even want to think about, much less own, a machine whose only purpose is to fire a projectile fast enough to tear a hole in another human being's flesh.

I know it's a naive, timid, woosy point of view, and I'll probably die one day because of it. I am in awe and admiration of people who can deal with owning and using guns but it's just not me.

Quote from: Incarnadine on January 11, 2013, 08:27:08 PM
Is it not most often true that the most effective deterrent to evil is brute force?

Bad guys are only stopped by fear.  The only way to stop an animal is to appear to be a bigger, stronger animal.

Only if you're willing to admit that you're at an intellectual disadvantage... I can think of numerous ways to deal with - let's say - an animal, short of appearing to be a "bigger, stronger animal".

Quote from: Sadie May on January 12, 2013, 08:13:36 AM
Only if you're willing to admit that you're at an intellectual disadvantage... I can think of numerous ways to deal with - let's say - an animal, short of appearing to be a "bigger, stronger animal".

Ok then how would you purpose to out think and disarm a lunatic with a gun who burst into a theater? With the ony goal and objective of going in there and doing the most damage possible.  There really isn't reasoning with insanity or criminals, if there was then we wouldn't have either.  Now, I'm not saying that we should go and hand out guns to anyone, but let's be real with the fact that a criminal or someone looking to do harm is not going to go though proper channels to obtain a weapon.  If they want one, they'll find a way to get one.  Stricter gun control laws really only affect those who are law abiding and.... Probably the exact people that would be harmed by a criminal.  I guess I would say that anyone of sound judgement should have the right to protect themselves because unfortunately we live in a world where reason doesn't always prevail.

Quote from: Penny Gurl on January 12, 2013, 08:33:54 AM
Ok then how would you purpose to out think and disarm a lunatic with a gun who burst into a theater?

It's unlikely that I'm equipped with that much persuasion.

Seems to me that a better solution would be to explore ways to keep lunatics from advancing to the stage of being armed in a theater... but hey - maybe that just requires too much effort, and it's much easier (and certainly less strain on the noggin) to just join the crossfire.

Quote from: Sadie May on January 12, 2013, 08:58:09 AM
It's unlikely that I'm equipped with that much persuasion.

Seems to me that a better solution would be to explore ways to keep lunatics from advancing to the stage of being armed in a theater... but hey - maybe that just requires too much effort, and it's much easier (and certainly less strain on the noggin) to just join the crossfire.

The answer is both.  Identify the true source of that issue, which was a lunatic, not a firearm.  Then deal with the true source of that issue, which is a lunatic, not a firearm.

If the first recourse fails (dealing with the lunatic), then the last resort is to counter the animal with a bigger animal.  If you can remove the smaller animal using your noggin', then that saves the defender $.99 for his bullet, depending on what he's carrying. 

If that last resort is taken away, then the anti-gun perspective is just as lop-sided and fanatical as the many of the anti-gun crowd accuse the pro-defense crowd of being.

(besides the fact that the 2nd Amendment was meant in part to keep the federal government in check, but that's opening up a whole 'nuther can'o'worms)

Quote from: Incarnadine on January 12, 2013, 09:17:56 AM
(besides the fact that the 2nd Amendment was meant in part to keep the federal government in check, but that's opening up a whole 'nuther can'o'worms)

And this particular crowd makes the loudest argument for keeping guns out of the hands of mentally-unbalanced persons...

On the one hand, this:



On the other, this:


"Meet my little friend."

Quote from: Sadie May on January 12, 2013, 09:33:36 AM

Quote from: Incarnadine on January 12, 2013, 09:17:56 AM
(besides the fact that the 2nd Amendment was meant in part to keep the federal government in check, but that's opening up a whole 'nuther can'o'worms)

And this particular crowd makes the loudest argument for keeping guns out of the hands of mentally-unbalanced persons...

On the one hand, this:



On the other, this:


"Meet my little friend."

The "arab spring" uprising called, they want their history back.

Quote from: Flan on January 12, 2013, 10:44:14 AM
The "arab spring" uprising called, they want their history back.

No problem: The history of those uprisings is threaded with military support, domestic and/or foreign. Civil resistance was also key, in some instances.

The one thing they have in common is that they were not seen to fruition by Johnny Buckshot and his trusty firearm, Ol' Bessy.

That sort of thinking is really somewhat unrealistic: anyone wanna give odds on ye local tri-corner-hat vigilante vs. the Modern Soldier, or an Apache Gunship, or an M-1 Abrams (assuming the military backed a tyrannical government - if the military did not back a tyrant, then Johnny can stand down: he/she will be in good hands...)?