Shooting at Santa Monica

[Dr. Keith]

If I happened across an active shooter I would have an option others may not have.

That is a fact.

So would an olympic sprinter. Point?

 

[newyorkguy]

If I happened across an active shooter I would have an option others may not have.

That is a fact.

I'd like to see you draw your hand gun and go up against a maniac in body armor firing an AR-15.

 

[rcfieldz]

Sad Days

To see that this kind of thing can happen anywhere these days.

 

[Dr. Keith]

To see that this kind of thing can happen anywhere these days.

I think this kind of thing is slightly less likely in some places.

 

[Xulld]

I'd like to see you draw your hand gun and go up against a maniac in body armor firing an AR-15.

Why would you want that? Are you being hyperbolic or would you really like to see something so terrible?

I don't think I could live with myself leaving the scene when a chance existed for me to stop such evil.

So in that sense Id be like Mark Allen Wilson, up against a threat with considerable fire power advantage.

Unless I was near my truck when it went down I would be likely to be no better armed than he was, but I wont get into details regarding my means of response given close proximity to my vehicle.

 

[Xulld]

Does anyone think that having loads of CCW permit holders about would

- reduce casualties in mass shootings?

- reduce shootings overall?

So would an olympic sprinter. Point?

It gets tiring defending myself against critics who cannot be troubled to read what is quoted and take a leap to try to understand the points.

If a person stops an active shooter, they have reduced the casualties in a mass shooting. If that occurs at all, it would reduce the overall shootings.

Having options allows responses to a problem. In this case shooting the active shooter offers many chances for people to escape, or stop him. Either way any additional chance is ultimately good. The logic is simple, and clear, even some recent examples exist, not sure why It needed spelling out. (except that my detractors enjoy trolling me)

 

[kmortis]

Keep it civil, keep it on topic. The topic is not the other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[Nessie]

If I happened across an active shooter I would have an option others may not have.

That is a fact.

Indeed, but that says nothing about the outcome.

 

[Nessie]

In California? Yeah, right.

Apparently it is easy to get guns that are supposedly banned in California

http://www.newtimesslo.com/cover/2922/what-assault-weapons-ban/

You just by the parts and put them together and you have what is basically an AR-15, as used by Zawahri.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It gets tiring defending myself against critics who cannot be troubled to read what is quoted and take a leap to try to understand the points.

I'm not a critic. You and I even agree on many salient points. I even understood your intended point, even if it seemed a bit naive. I was just trying to highlight that view.

If a person stops an active shooter, they have reduced the casualties in a mass shooting. If that occurs at all, it would reduce the overall shootings.

The key is "if". What if the person tries to stop an active shooter but instead shoots an innocent? What if a person tries to stop an active shooter but instead gets shot and provides another gun to the shooter?

Is there any reason to assume your if is more likely than mine? What if I listed more?

Having options allows responses to a problem.

Yes. A leatherman gives you even more options!

In this case shooting the active shooter offers many chances for people to escape, or stop him.

Assumes an accurate shot. Assumes a clear shooting path. Assumes no bystander thinks you are the shooter. Assumes lots of stuff.

Either way any additional chance is ultimately good.

Only if the result is ultimately good. If the result is bad, then we say the gun owner was in error and not a true responsible gun owner and move on to the next hypothetical where every true gun owner handles their weapon flawlessly.

The logic is simple, and clear, even some recent examples exist, not sure why It needed spelling out. (except that my detractors enjoy trolling me)

I am neither a detractor nor a troll. I simply think that you only think of gun laws and gun usage as it pertain to yourself. The truth is that there are thousands of idiots out there who carry a gun every day and every time one of them leaves a gun on a ride or out for a kid to access it makes it harder to justify. So, just dismiss them as "not a true responsible gun owner" or "no harm no foul". I see them as indicative of a culture that allows unsafe gun owners to go unchecked by law or peers.

 

[WildCat]

Under Federal law, unless changed recently, a cap-and-ball BP pistol is not a firearm.
Of course, it only holds 5, must have a cap pushed onto each nipple, and takes a hour to reload...

Actually that particular model has cylinders that can be quickly swapped out. Clint Eastwood's "Preacher" character in Pale Rider used the Remington Model 1858 New Army (Pietta makes a replica), see what happens at the 55 second mark of this clip:



So "assault weapons" have been around for over 150 years!

 

[Xulld]

Indeed, but that says nothing about the outcome.

Yes it does. The set of possible outcomes are increased.

 

[Xulld]

I'm not a critic. You and I even agree on many salient points. I even understood your intended point, even if it seemed a bit naive. I was just trying to highlight that view.

Interesting, and here I consider you naive.

The key is "if". What if the person tries to stop an active shooter but instead shoots an innocent? What if a person tries to stop an active shooter but instead gets shot and provides another gun to the shooter?

Interesting indeed. Every single active shooter that has not killed themselves or given up has been stooped by a person with a gun.

Is there any reason to assume your if is more likely than mine? What if I listed more?

Empirical evidence exists Keith . . .

Assumes an accurate shot. Assumes a clear shooting path. Assumes no bystander thinks you are the shooter. Assumes lots of stuff.

No, just the presence of a person with a gun challenging the active shooter is a gain for unarmed civilians trying to flee. You do not need to assume anything, just look at the facts. Plenty of examples exist. I imagine that everyone here is naively separating civilians into a separate category from police. No factual reasons exist to do so. If you say training, then the burden is on you to prove that a) civilians who carry are not trained as well, b) that the training in question has any impact on outcomes.

Good luck.

Only if the result is ultimately good. If the result is bad, then we say the gun owner was in error and not a true responsible gun owner and move on to the next hypothetical where every true gun owner handles their weapon flawlessly.

You might do that, but it would be unfair, and not a critical assessment. Bad outcomes can occur for a host of reasons that may or may not be related to the nature of the actions of the person attempting a defense against an active shooter.

That you lean toward placing the blame of any bad outcome on the defender illustrates your bias.

I am neither a detractor nor a troll. I simply think that you only think of gun laws and gun usage as it pertain to yourself. The truth is that there are thousands of idiots out there who carry a gun every day and every time one of them leaves a gun on a ride or out for a kid to access it makes it harder to justify. So, just dismiss them as "not a true responsible gun owner" or "no harm no foul". I see them as indicative of a culture that allows unsafe gun owners to go unchecked by law or peers.

This is the source of your bias. You "other" millions of human beings and title them "idiot" based on trivial examples. Then generalize that bias to the collective.

Then you try to seem like a fair and unbiased party. Its a hoot.