• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

To Protect Thyself,

RWVBWL

Master Poster
RWVBWL
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,171
Location
Havin' Fun in L.A.
Who would YOU shoot 1st?

The Guy or the Girl?

http://news.yahoo.com/2-officers-3-others-dead-las-vegas-shooting-232556307.html


I was at the beach today and I heard of this story on the radio.

As a gun owner,
a white guy, 1 who over 20 years ago sometimes carried a concealed handgun in public without a permit right after The Los Angeles Riots of '92, I have wondered what would happen if many in American Society were armed and able to always defend themselves in public, be it while shopping, eating out, seeing a movie, go bowling, or heading to the beach to surf a few waves...

Todays story of another tragic killing spree, done so with guns,
comes from Las Vegas, Nevada, a place where my Grandparents,
(1 of whom helped build the Hoover Dam), Mom, Dad, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins and 2 of my Sisters and Nephews live and have died.

I wonder,
bein' a Los Angeles native and gun owner,
what can be done to prevent this kind of madness?

Arm all of American Society?


Allow me to speculate for a few moments,
to let you read of my current thoughts:

You are eating pizza with friends, family, or by yourself.
Bam!
You look up: A guy started shooting.
Bam! So does a gal, from a different location.

You are armed.
To defend yourself, and/or your family.
Are you really gonna pull out you firearm and get into a public gunfight?

Who are you gonna shoot at 1st?
The guy?
The girl?

How do you,
armed, carryin' in public,
know, in a split second of realization,
who started the gunfire as you were eating your pizza?

Was it 1 deranged individual?
What if they are a team?
Like The Boston Bombers?
Or these 2 from Las Vegas today?


What about all of the of the other armed residents out there
eatin' pizza, or shopping, or dining, or watchin' that movie, or bowlin' or getin' ready to surf?

The article linked above states that there were 1000 witnesses.

Let's say that many of these folks were armed with handguns.
What if they pulled out their handguns and started returning fire to what they perceived as a threat to themselves, their friends, their lil' kids as they were out and about in public? Might there have been many more wounded, killed?

Is arming American Society the answer?
 
No.

Everyone being armed only creates a more confusing and volatile situation. You do not need to be armed in today's society. Just ask yourself how often you, personally, have been present when people start shooting at each other. For most of us, we have never seen that happen, and for most of the rest, it has only happened once... or we saw it only in a war zone.

That might suggest that under most conditions, you will not need a firearm. Also, in those rare conditions where people do start shooting, you might be better off without one anyway. The instant you pull a gun, it makes you a target. You damn well better not miss... or choose the wrong person to shoot at.
 
Last edited:
The cognitive dilemma would be so great I'd have to shoot myself.
 
I would avoid the situation by ordering delivery. I've been told I'm "avoidant", so I guess that makes sense.
 
Manopolus said:
No.

Everyone being armed only creates a more confusing and volatile situation. You do not need to be armed in today's society. Just ask yourself how often you, personally, have been present when people start shooting at each other. For most of us, we have never seen that happen, and for most of the rest, it has only happened once... or we saw it only in a war zone.

That might suggest that under most conditions, you will not need a firearm. Also, in those rare conditions where people do start shooting, you might be better off without one anyway. The instant you pull a gun, it makes you a target. You damn well better not miss... or choose the wrong person to shoot at.
Click to expand...

Even with trained police it's surprising how often they miss their targets when the targets are shooting back. The question in my mind is, if these incidents become more common what is the best response? Would having everyone armed serve as a deterrent? Would it discourage the crazies?
 
Last edited:
MontagK505 said:
Even with trained police it's surprising how often they miss their targets when the targets are shooting back. The question in my mind is, if these incidents become more common what is the best response? Would having everyone armed serve as a deterrent?
Click to expand...

The answer is obvious. We develop robot brains so that if we're shot we just download into a super awesome robot body...with the strength of five gorillas. All of a sudden guns seem obsolete =D
 
If they're shooting at each other, attacking either of them makes me a target, not just a bystander. I have no reason to shoot either. Instead, it's in my interest to get away.
 
Lowpro said:
The answer is obvious. We develop robot brains so that if we're shot we just download into a super awesome robot body...with the strength of five gorillas. All of a sudden guns seem obsolete =D
Click to expand...

My nipples are getting hard just thinking about it!
 
MontagK505 said:
Even with trained police it's surprising how often they miss their targets when the targets are shooting back. The question in my mind is, if these incidents become more common what is the best response? Would having everyone armed serve as a deterrent? Would it discourage the crazies?
Click to expand...

Most of the worst of them are intending to die in the process from the get-go. How does a more dangerous situation deter them if it's essentially suicide to begin with? Maybe it'd deter a robbery or something, but not a mass shooter or a terrorist (same thing, really). Hell, the extra challenge might be welcome, I suspect -- making it a greater achievement in the eyes of suicidal attention whores.
 
Last edited:
I can't but help wonder: where is this idea that the typical American citizen needs to defend himself/herself even more today than, say, thirty-five or forty years ago, coming from? I ask because, nationally, crime rates are at lows last seen thirty-five to forty years ago, depending on the type of offence. The U.S. is the safest it's been in terms of crime in more than three decades.
 
Corsair 115 said:
I can't but help wonder: where is this idea that the typical American citizen needs to defend himself/herself even more today than, say, thirty-five or forty years ago, coming from? I ask because, nationally, crime rates are at lows last seen thirty-five to forty years ago, depending on the type of offence. The U.S. is the safest it's been in terms of crime in more than three decades.
Click to expand...

I have a theory about this but it's an uninformed theory (because I only visit the U.S. and have relatives there, I have never lived there)....

Part of the U.S. ethos is to be self sufficient, here in the U.K. we're happy to suckle at the nation's teat, the expectation in the U.S. is that you should sort things out rather than expect the government to sort out everything for you. For some people this extends to personal security. In the U.K. we expect the police to protect us from bad people, if necessary they will do so with guns, In the U.S. there are many people who are unwilling to rely on the police. I suspect that there are many reasons for this and each person has a different set of reasons but they may include geographic isolation, a desire for self-sufficiency and possibly a mistrust of the police.

As crime levels fall, it's increasingly unlikely that a person will actually be a victim which in turn means that they are increasingly unlikely to have to use a firearm to protect themselves and their family and so are unlikely to experience the negative consequences of doing so. This means that the thought of protecting yourself and your family becomes more attractive ans so more people are prepared to take it on.

Of course the other view is that even though the risk of crime has fallen, the perception of that risk has grown so people feel a greater need to protect themselves.
 
RWVBWL said:
Is arming American Society the answer?
Click to expand...

Not unless you want to vastly increase the rate of gun deaths.
Corsair 115 said:
I can't but help wonder: where is this idea that the typical American citizen needs to defend himself/herself even more today than, say, thirty-five or forty years ago, coming from?
Click to expand...
1. The news media, eager to peddle their wares.
2. Politicians, eager to create an impression they're doing something.
 
Last edited:
Corsair 115 said:
I can't but help wonder: where is this idea that the typical American citizen needs to defend himself/herself even more today than, say, thirty-five or forty years ago, coming from? I ask because, nationally, crime rates are at lows last seen thirty-five to forty years ago, depending on the type of offence. The U.S. is the safest it's been in terms of crime in more than three decades.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that people feel the need "to defend himself/herself even more today than, say, thirty-five or forty years ago"?
 
RWVBWL said:
Who would YOU shoot 1st?

The Guy or the Girl?

Is arming American Society the answer?
Click to expand...

Wow! Those are some very interesting questions.

Here in Canada, our laws are designed so that the average citizen will not be permitted to arm themselves for their own protection or security. Even the police are prohibited from being armed when not on duty. Perhaps the Canadian model is the answer to the violent crime issue in the States.

Teach everyone how to dial 911 on their cell phones while running faster than a bullet...
 
Last edited:
I guess one has to give this guy credit for trying to off the shooters, if he in fact was armed. But when crazy people begin shooting, I would think the first to be shot would be those who are openly carrying, unless of course all madmen are also necessarily stupid.

However, what if these bad guys had instead been merely overweight teen age gun activists carrying their assault rifles proudly defending their rights in Walmart, and running to try to get out of the rain, or trying to impress the chicks? If an armed bystander felt threatened, would he be justified in shooting them? Would he be prosecuted?


The civilian shot dead by the pair is believed to have been carrying a concealed firearm and had opened fire on them as they ran into the Walmart, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Police would not confirm if the civilian was armed.
Click to expand...
 
Olowkow said:
I would think the first to be shot would be those who are openly carrying.
Click to expand...

Is Nevada an open carry state?

I never understood the concept of open carry as it would indeed make the person a primary target. The police should not be concerned about a law abiding individual who is carrying concealed and anyone with criminal intent is going to CC anyway...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom