Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Mass Shooting El Paso...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Um, a lot of stores do have armed security (or even off duty police).
    A lot of places do not. It would be very out of place for a lot of places to have one (can you imagine armed guards are Starbucks, McDonalds, Gas Stations, and day-cares?).

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    But I was talking about if it were more popular for armed civilians to be walking around. If a gun man knew that say 20% of the population in a town went around armed, he would probably not try to be a mass shooter of the sort we have been seeing lately.
    Perhaps, but KG makes a good point above.

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    But I am talking about handguns. Not walking around carrying long rifles scaring the crap out of everyone. That is just dumb. A lot of places have laws saying that you must carry concealed or not carry at all in public. And even open carry requires the handgun to be secured in a holster.
    I keep imagining that post-apocalyptic future scenario where every student in a classroom is packing heat, where every mother has a gun tucked under a baby carriage. rogue recently brought up that episode of Star Trek A Piece of the Action, where everyone is packing heat, and an occasional drive-by doesn't really seem to bug people too much. I bet no one who wrote that episode would have ever guessed that some people would advocate for such a world 50 years later.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
      Not really, he wasn't stopped until police showed up, six minutes into the incident. By that time, he had shot 46 people.
      It was the Dayton shooter:

      The gunman was killed by police about 30 seconds after he fired his first shot, police said.
      https://www.wsj.com/articles/mass-sh...ad-11564962534

      But yeah it doesn't take long to kill people. But if the police are 15-30 minutes out, it could be much, much worse if there isn't someone else there to stop them.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        A lot of places do not. It would be very out of place for a lot of places to have one (can you imagine armed guards are Starbucks, McDonalds, Gas Stations, and day-cares?).



        Perhaps, but KG makes a good point above.



        I keep imagining that post-apocalyptic future scenario where every student in a classroom is packing heat, where every mother has a gun tucked under a baby carriage. rogue recently brought up that episode of Star Trek A Piece of the Action, where everyone is packing heat, and an occasional drive-by doesn't really seem to bug people too much. I bet no one who wrote that episode would have ever guessed that some people would advocate for such a world 50 years later.

        It doesn't have to be everyone, and it would never be, but if enough people carried guns so that any potential shooter would think that there is a good chance someone (or multiple) people would shoot back, he would most likely not try to become a mass shooter. Of course there is the occasional complete nutjob who would not be deterred, but knowing your 'enemy' is armed is a pretty good deterrent that has served various countries to keep the peace since WW2.

        And I think having armed guards in places like schools or day care centers would be a good idea.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Is there a time limit on how long you have to murder your victims now? Someone with an axe or sword could kill a lot of people pretty quickly in a crowded area.

          And since you only care about using these tragedies as a political club, you have no room to talk about a lack of empathy or concern, you pissant.
          Duh! Yeah, there's a big time limit as to how many you can kill before you are stopped. The El Paso shooter was stopped in less than a minute, but he was still able to murder some 26 or so people and wounded many more. You can't do that with a knife, Sparko. And I can both use that and other mass murders as a political club as well as have empathy and concern, because that is the reason for yeilding a political club in the first place you dim wit. Had you and yours actually had any empathy or concern for the dead and their families yourselves you'd be yeilding the same club. But you don't, you make excuses.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            The El Paso shooter was stopped in less than a minute
            Six minutes
            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

            Comment


            • Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
              reminds me of a story from a list of stupidest criminals. Guy came to a town and decided to rob at gun point one of the local businesses he made a number of mistakes. He had to walk around a police car to get to the shop, he was in a right to carry jurisdiction and it was a gun shop he choose to rob. you can bet what happened.
              It is a well known fact among police that criminals are subject to tunnel vision -- for real. They are already nervous, and so focused on getting their money, that they fail to see things in absolute plain sight.

              Once, I was eating breakfast at a Denny's with a colleague - both of us on duty and in uniform - patrol car parked right outside, and some dude came in to rob the store. I had to motion for the people around me to stop waving in my direction and be hushed - we didn't want a shoot-out in the store. We wanted him to finish his robbery (clerk knew her job was to hand over the money) and take this all outside. It was almost comical - the gun he was holding had an orange tip - obviously a toy - and we had radioed for help, so two patrol units were pulling up outside as he was trying to exit, and when he tried to come back inside, my buddy and I were blocking the entrance, guns drawn. He gave up without a fight, and the restaurant erupted into cheers.

              For the record, it's still armed robbery even with a toy gun if the clerk believed it to be real (she did) and was in fear for her life.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                Six minutes
                Possible, I thought I read less than a minute. I may have got it mixed up with the Dayton shooter timeline. But the argument is the same.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Duh!
                  Priceless.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    Duh! Yeah, there's a big time limit as to how many you can kill before you are stopped. The El Paso shooter was stopped in less than a minute, but he was still able to murder some 26 or so people and wounded many more. You can't do that with a knife, Sparko. And I can both use that and other mass murders as a political club as well as have empathy and concern, because that is the reason for yeilding a political club in the first place you dim wit. Had you and yours actually had any empathy or concern for the dead and their families yourselves you'd be yeilding the same club. But you don't, you make excuses.
                    So, if I really cared about the victims I would be using their deaths as a means to try to shame and blame you and the other liberals in a game of political war, like you are?


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      So, if I really cared about the victims I would be using their deaths as a means to try to shame and blame you and the other liberals in a game of political war, like you are?

                      EGGzackly!

                      Just like - if you REALLY care about poor people, you'll arrange to keep them "on the plantation" with meager financial assistance with no real plan to help them get out of their situation. THAT, sir, is true commie compassion!
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        A lot of places do not. It would be very out of place for a lot of places to have one (can you imagine armed guards are Starbucks, McDonalds, Gas Stations, and day-cares?).
                        That reminded me of Sacha Baron Cohen's stunt where he tricked several politicians into voicing support for a program to arm kindergarteners.
                        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          It doesn't have to be everyone, and it would never be, but if enough people carried guns so that any potential shooter would think that there is a good chance someone (or multiple) people would shoot back, he would most likely not try to become a mass shooter. Of course there is the occasional complete nutjob who would not be deterred, but knowing your 'enemy' is armed is a pretty good deterrent that has served various countries to keep the peace since WW2.

                          And I think having armed guards in places like schools or day care centers would be a good idea.
                          Yikes. That just sounds insane to me. And I don't think unilateral mass destruction via nuclear armaments is a particularly good example for keeping the peace at Walmart through escalated armed resistance. Maybe if citizens were allowed to carry around tactical nuclear catapults à la video games like Fallout, but in the real world, it seems to me that'd be...impractical. And anyways, if mental illness is the big problem behind mass shootings (as has been argued for in the last couple incidences), the amount of armed civilians hanging out at Starbucks and day cares probably isn't going to factor much into the shooter's equations. In the same manner, if the rate of gun violence in the US is mostly due to gang warfare, ensuring more people are armed doesn't seem like much of a counter-measure.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                            That reminded me of Sacha Baron Cohen's stunt where he tricked several politicians into voicing support for a program to arm kindergarteners.
                            Yeah, I saw that.

                            I just don't get the logic behind that sort of thinking.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              Yikes. That just sounds insane to me. And I don't think unilateral mass destruction via nuclear armaments is a particularly good example for keeping the peace at Walmart through escalated armed resistance. Maybe if citizens were allowed to carry around tactical nuclear catapults à la video games like Fallout, but in the real world, it seems to me that'd be...impractical. And anyways, if mental illness is the big problem behind mass shootings (as has been argued for in the last couple incidences), the amount of armed civilians hanging out at Starbucks and day cares probably isn't going to factor much into the shooter's equations. In the same manner, if the rate of gun violence in the US is mostly due to gang warfare, ensuring more people are armed doesn't seem like much of a counter-measure.
                              It would still factor into a mentally ill person of the type that want to be mass murderers. Their goal is to kill as many possible so they are going to go where the likelihood of the people they are shooting at won't be shooting back. That is why they usually target churches and schools.

                              So I think places that are likely targets should have armed and trained security at the least. You might not like it, but it would be effective. Wringing our hands and piling on more gun regulations on people who aren't shooting up schools hasn't worked so far.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                Yikes. That just sounds insane to me. And I don't think unilateral mass destruction via nuclear armaments is a particularly good example for keeping the peace at Walmart through escalated armed resistance. Maybe if citizens were allowed to carry around tactical nuclear catapults à la video games like Fallout, but in the real world, it seems to me that'd be...impractical. And anyways, if mental illness is the big problem behind mass shootings (as has been argued for in the last couple incidences), the amount of armed civilians hanging out at Starbucks and day cares probably isn't going to factor much into the shooter's equations. In the same manner, if the rate of gun violence in the US is mostly due to gang warfare, ensuring more people are armed doesn't seem like much of a counter-measure.
                                If we're talking about countering mass shootings, which is the situation that ALWAYS brings up gun control (since the left pretty much ignores general gun violence in urban areas), it would have 2 effects. Both as a deterrent (to the shooters that do calculate this risk), and as a physical counter.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X