School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
Giz said:
This is silly. Tell any small statured folks who haven't spent inordinate amounts of time training to be living weapons that they had many options to prevent being mugged/raped/murdered. Options remotely as effective as drawing a gun.
Click to expand...
That's not the point. You're now imposing conditions that were not in play when I made the statement. I said that there were non-lethal options for self-defence. Now you're playing madlib goalposts. "Oh, but what if you're {insert stature} who {insert training status} being {insert situation}".

I know people who would be more than happy to give a couple of hours training to that person which would make their situation a lot more tenable. More training, more ability. Any able-bodied person can get self-defence training.

The only situation where self-defence training isn't particularly useful is when someone is shooting at you. No amount of training will help then. There isn't time.
 
arthwollipot said:
No, that's absolutely a lie. As anyone with actual self-defense training knows. There are many options for non-lethal takedowns.

Granted it's harder when they're trying to shoot you. But in that situation you've rarely got time for any form of self defence of any kind anyway. If someone is about to shoot you, you're going to get shot and there's not a lot you can do about it. If you think you can quickdraw a concealed handgun, turn off the safety (you are carrying it with the safety on, right?), aim and fire before someone who is already pointing a gun at you twitches their finger, then you're just delusional. Wild West fantasies notwithstanding.

In a country where any attacker is not expected to have a gun - ie, any developed country except for America - then you absolutely do not require lethal force to defend yourself from an attacker.
Click to expand...

What a load of total BS and filled with strawmen. The audacity of calling me a liar is an awesome load of pure horse manure.
 
arthwollipot said:
That's not the point. You're now imposing conditions that were not in play when I made the statement. I said that there were non-lethal options for self-defence. Now you're playing madlib goalposts. "Oh, but what if you're {insert stature} who {insert training status} being {insert situation}".
Click to expand...

No, you are the one playing with the goalposts. I was responding to: "As anyone with actual self-defense training knows. There are many options for non-lethal takedowns."
In the real world, the people getting mugged/raped/etc will usually be at some kind of disadvantage (whether size disparity, or the aggressor has a knife, etc) so me pointing out that you made a glib statement about how victims had many options was quite reasonable.
 
Giz said:
No, you are the one playing with the goalposts. I was responding to: "As anyone with actual self-defense training knows. There are many options for non-lethal takedowns."
In the real world, the people getting mugged/raped/etc will usually be at some kind of disadvantage (whether size disparity, or the aggressor has a knife, etc) so me pointing out that you made a glib statement about how victims had many options was quite reasonable.
Click to expand...
But victims do have many options. They can undertake self-defence training, for a start. It's not that hard to find a class, and I know people who will provide training for free.
 
Nessie said:
My point stands, the availability of types of gun is not correlated to mass shootings. All those different countries have different types of firearm that civilians are allowed. There is no connecting between type of weapon and the instance of mass shooting.
Click to expand...

So what? How 'bout correlating to the deadliest firearms available in each country? The Norway shooter apparently tried to buy an AK47 before he settled for an American .223 semi-auto. The guy in Las Vegas might have used a grenade launcher if he could have gotten one. You think he would have done the same damage if he only had a bolt-action deer rifle?
 
Giz said:
This is silly. Tell any small statured folks who haven't spent inordinate amounts of time training to be living weapons that they had many options to prevent being mugged/raped/murdered. Options remotely as effective as drawing a gun.
Click to expand...

Pepper spray?

Especially when you look at how many people have been killed accidentally by the stuff.
 
Bob001 said:
So what? How 'bout correlating to the deadliest firearms available in each country? The Norway shooter apparently tried to buy an AK47 before he settled for an American .223 semi-auto. The guy in Las Vegas might have used a grenade launcher if he could have gotten one. You think he would have done the same damage if he only had a bolt-action deer rifle?
Click to expand...

It shows that time spend legislating on types of weapon is time wasted.

The real cause of the USA's problem is that unsuitable people can easily get a gun.
 
Meadmaker said:
.

1. Most of them don't have guns in the first place, and it's important to understand why not. They do not have guns. They do not have guns because they do not trust themselves with guns. They know that if you carry a gun, the most likely person to be harmed by that gun is yourself, followed by family, friends and close associates.
Click to expand...

Most people don't own guns, but you go beyond the available data when you claim they don't trust themselves with guns.

I don't own a gun, but it isn't because I don't trust myself. It's because that, while I enjoy shooting, I don't see many opportunities to do so in my urban environment. I'm simply not passionate enough about the sport to bother owning a gun (nor am I so concerned about self protection).

This is a nation where the vast majority regard themselves as above average as drivers. I doubt that they regard gun statistics as applying to them, by and large and regardless of whether they should or not.
 
Bob001 said:
Yeah, every country has crazy people, and many allow guns in civilian hands. But no other major country (I suspect Yemen, Syria etc. are exceptions) makes it so easy for crazy people to get guns.
Click to expand...


It's essential also to keep in mind that if you allow any guns at all to be kept by members of the public in their own homes, then it's impossible to keep those guns out of the hands of people who develop dangerous psychological, emotional, or mental problems etc. And the reason is that people who are perfectly stable and in full reasoned self-control one week, may very easily become lethally unstable and mentally out-of-control the following week or month or year ...

... that can happen in any country. In fact does happen in every country. People in the UK or Finland or Germany are not immune to those same psychological and mental problems. But in those countries (and all of Europe afaik) very few of those people will have any guns in the first place ... they did not own guns when they were entirely stable and psychologically in good self-control, and there is therefore no instant access to guns when sudden changes in their life may precipitate various psychological, emotional, and mental problems ...

... but the huge difference in the USA is that when perfectly stable people with a valid gun license and a house full of weapons, suddenly start to suffer from any number of psychological or mental problems or just perceived deep grudges against various people, in the USA many of those individuals can just pick up a gun and take out revenge on other people in the streets around them.


So just to emphasise - having a valid license and satisfying a background check into the persons mental health is very far from being a guarantee that the individual will not a later date (and it may be even just weeks or months later) be unfit to exercise the same rational caution against some deranged or deluded or ill-reasoned belief that he (it's almost always a "he") should go out into the streets with his guns and bullets and start exacting deadly revenge on all sorts people.
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
However the argument* seems to be that it would cost more to train US troops if there weren't semiautomatic rifles available to people with grudges.
Click to expand...

Certainly, that's not the argument. Rather, it is that a well armed populace is easier to train and that we're abysmal at detecting who has grudges.

Now, I'm not firmly on the pro gun side at all, but straw man arguments don't help.
 
Craig B said:
"Asinine"? Here in the UK even the police don't carry weapons on normal duty, and nor do civilians possess them for personal protection. Yet the death rate from firearm crime is about one tenth of the US figure, last time I checked.

Who are the jackasses in this issue? The USA, or the other civilised countries?
Click to expand...

And I can look at the statistics for UK police firearms use - hey I can even see then number of times UK police forces have drawn but not used Tasers.

Compare that to the US where we don't know how many people are shot by the police, but we do know that, Seattle, for example has far more police shootings than the whole of the UK.


I am far safer from my police than someone in the US is from their police.
 
Bob001 said:
Snip...

The U.S. is the only major country where AR15s are a casual over-the-counter purchase, like aspirin, and, except for some cities, they can usually be carried in public openly.

Bit more snip
Click to expand...

In the UK we are limited to 2 packets (total 32 pills I think) of Asprin/Panadol etc any one shop.

I'm sure you can buy a lot more bullets than that in one go.
 
Statement by Casey Cagle the Lt Governor of Georgia

"I will kill any tax legislation that benefits @Delta unless the company changes its position and fully reinstates its relationship with @NRA. Corporations cannot attack conservatives and expect us not to fight back."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom