Yet another shooting

[raymond6751]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Yeah, that would have totally worked in a crowded bar if some 50 people or so all had drawn guns after the first shots and returned fire on someone with a gun in his hand....
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti gun in general but I highly doubt it would have made a positive change here.

There might be 50 dead and 60 wounded, most from those firing back at the bad guy. Some would not have been able to tell who is the bad guy. Some would not have been sure if there was only one bad guy. Most shots would miss intended targets. Imagine being a cop and having to go into such a hell-hole, not knowing also which guys with guns were good or bad !

Gun control arguments against are not all about the rights but mostly I think about money. The gun sellers and the ammo sellers would lose a lot. Big lobbies all the time, paying politicians to do nothing.

Class action lawsuits worked against the tobacco companies. How about suing the gun and ammo makers? Include the politicians? Funds going to the victims.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by raymond6751

There might be 50 dead and 60 wounded, most from those firing back at the bad guy.

I was sarcastic.
I meant that it would turn into a chaotic situation where no one still knows who fired the first shots and people would probably open fire on anyone with a gun.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Dowly

The "good guy" argument fails the moment you apply some common sense to it.


How does the "good guy" identify the "bad guy" in a crowded place and if there happens to be more than one "good guy"? How does the police identify the "good guy" from the "bad guy"?


Even police officers have spoken against these "good guys" since they only add to confusion and when the police go in, they need to know that the guy waving the gun around is the bad guy.

i guess my first hat tip would be he is the person shooting everyone

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by August

Well that's a mighty big "if". Can you name some instances where that has happened?, because I can name plenty of them where the lack of an armed good guy has driven up the body count significantly in these events. I can also name instances where an armed good guy has stopped an attack and managed to do it without hitting innocent bystanders, maybe not even firing a shot.

In a loud, crowded bar/dance floor, you think everyone will know who is the criminal shooter and who are the armed citizens? Mass confusion.

[August]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

In a loud, crowded bar/dance floor, you think everyone will know who is the criminal shooter and who are the armed citizens? Mass confusion.

But you're assuming that everyone who has a gun on them will instantly draw it and begin spraying bullets around randomly the second the shooting starts, as if we are only a step down on the crazy scale from the killer himself.

That's what the whole gun control argument boils down to, that Americans cannot be trusted with freedom so they must be made as harmless as possible. If that means that we make it easier for mass murderers and other violent criminals to commit their crimes then so be it. All hail the power of the state.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by August

But you're assuming that everyone who has a gun on them will instantly draw it and begin spraying bullets around randomly the second the shooting starts, as if we are only a step down on the crazy scale from the killer himself.

As Neal already said it would be difficult to spot the shooter in a mass of people, only those next to him would know who he is. In the next second some 7/X people who surround him have their guns in their hand. Then another five turn around and now see 8 people with a gun...

Originally Posted by August

That's what the whole gun control argument boils down to, that Americans cannot be trusted with freedom so they must be made as harmless as possible. If that means that we make it easier for mass murderers and other violent criminals to commit their crimes then so be it. All hail the power of the state.

But you already give all your power to the state. You have an election system like in medieval times, where "Churfuersten" elected the Kaiser. "We" have no direct democracy, nor do we have democracy at all by definition.

If it makes it more difficult for mass shooters and criminals to kill innocent people, the "power of the state" maybe not the badest thing of all.
If you crave for your freedom so much why are there speed limits? Or any laws or limitations? Freedom is a good thing as long as it does not harm your neighbour. You are only free when you are alone. And even then you have to bow to the laws of physics. Even if science, facts and reason are under assault over there, i know.

The best thing next to gun control could be a nation wide education system thought out by people who think generation-wide, before they order or decree something. Reasonable people who think about the not so immediate future, instead of spreading short-sighted populist bull.

So back on topic, what could be done if we do not rule anything out? B.t.w. i have nothing against guns per se, i just do not think it is a good idea to let everyone have them. You say only answer is arming everyone, like Trump said, from teachers to nurses.

What else could work? 100 percent surveillance like in China? How fast could a cop react even if this could be implemented? Same as giving all power to the state b.t.w.

What will not work is repeating "Thoughts and prayers" ad nauseam, and doing nothing about a climate in a culture that seems to produce those shooters.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by August

But you're assuming that everyone who has a gun on them will instantly draw it and begin spraying bullets around randomly the second the shooting starts, as if we are only a step down on the crazy scale from the killer himself.

That's what the whole gun control argument boils down to, that Americans cannot be trusted with freedom so they must be made as harmless as possible. If that means that we make it easier for mass murderers and other violent criminals to commit their crimes then so be it. All hail the power of the state.

No, I'm not assuming that at all. I'm saying in a dark venue, with people screaming and running 500 directions, gunshots ringing out, fear, uncertainty, urgency--an armed citizen draws his weapon, sees someone else with a weapon and takes a shot and misses, hits the bad guy, maybe; maybe hits people around the bad guy--a second armed citizen who is in a different cluster of screaming people sees the first armed citizen shooting, he bravely tries to take down the armed citizen, meanwhile now the people clear the area enough for the 3rd and 4th armed citizens to see the bad guy, first and second armed citizens shooting each other--it's a group of terrorists, not just one, they think....they draw down to stop them...

I trust Americans and I'm not saying they should be disarmed at all, but I am saying in a situation like this, it will end with a terrible result, no matter their intentions.

[Skybird]

The confusuon argument describes a situation where everything turns worse. But somehow it is not concerned abut the fact that a gunman starting to run amok itself already is a worst case scenario as well.



Can it get worse than a wolf going rabid inside a fllock of unarmed sheep? Or could it be even worse when sheep have fangs and claws as well, at leats have some of these huge wolf dogs that even wolves scare away from?


WThe confusion argument silently takes it for granted that the losses suffered from the gunman spraying bullets is an acceptable price for nt allowing the confusion of a group of victims shooting back and maybe - AND MAYBE NOT !! - lock onto the wrong transponder signals, so to speak.


And then, I would not expect that in a disco or bar EVERYBODY carries a fireweapon. the number of people beign armed, would be limited. Many ladies would not carry at all, and only some of the men. Also, those in the vicinity of the shooter starting a frenzy will react earlier than those at the very other side of the bar, hall, room.


However I would not trust (all) Americans (=every human being) to be panic-proof and reasonable, one should not take that for granted. One can only influence the chances for the better, the probability: by training, preparation, a need for license qulifications. this is no fail-safe approach, that is clear. But it shifts the chances in faovur of the future victims.



The many shooting incidents there are now, to me ARE the worst case already. Worse it hardly can get.


I u-turned on these gun law issues in the past couple of years. And in this case I must support August's views on it. Turning the population into a helpless, depending flock of harmless sheep, is not the way I support. But this is what states want. If state claims a monopole for violence, then it has the obligation to protect citizens and to compensate for the gap that the absence of self-defence capoacity of citizens leaves behind. It is obvious that sate cannot fulfill thisobligation, and that tibgs slowly shift for the worse, not ust in Aemrica. It will get worse in the future, for financial reaosns. and that is why I put the legitimacy of state monopoles for force and violence into question. State breaks the contract and so cannot expect or demand that citizens nevertheless should obey it.

[Rockin Robbins]

I think the thing everybody is missing is that California has the toughest anti-gun laws in the country. Maybe New York is tougher. But in spite of all the anti-gun legislation, propaganda, Antifa anti-violence rallies (hehehe), progressive politics, repressive thought control, this guy had a gun. He easily obtained a gun.

And bad guys, in France, the UK, Germany will always be able to obtain or manufacture a gun. It's not like a gun is difficult to make, especially if you aren't shooting a particular target.

And there are much more dangerous things. Alcohol, motor vehicles, food. These all are convenient weapons, sometimes voluntarily employed by the victims themselves. Shall we outlaw delivery trucks because killers ran them through crowds and used them to contain explosives to blow up large buildings?

When will we learn the people kill by any means available? Would we feel better if the guy in California blew the nightclub up with a bomb? Or poisoned the drinks? Success! He didn't use a gun. I hear in the UK the stylish way to kill is a nice big knife.

Things otherwise useful and good can be used to kill. The solution is not to eliminate the things, but to get a handle on the people. Mental health care is a disaster in the US, as veterans who gave their lives for their country (all veterans sign a promissory note for their lives. Only some have that note cashed in) have been abandoned by a country that owes them its life. Just fixing that problem would preclude incidents like California where a man trained in the use of a gun goes rogue for whatever reason.

But the sad fact is this. In an open society where freedom is more important than safety, these things WILL happen. Lacking armed guards, active surveillance of every square inch of the country and screening checkpoints at ridiculously frequent intervals, and an atmosphere of "rat your neighbor out," some killings are inevitable.

Part of our problem is that when there's a killing three thousand miles away, you know about it before the smell of gunpowder is out of the air. So we get a very wrong impression of how common these killings are. They are very rare. You'll win the lottery before you witness one of these atrocities. This was happening double or triple in the 1850s and nobody knew about it.

We accept without a shrug that 40,000 a year are killed in automobile accidents, from the flu, or from Tylenol overdoses, yes, that's three times more deaths from those three than from guns. Hell, that's life we say. Scientific American reports

In 1999, the Institute of Medicine published the famous "To Err Is Human" report, which dropped a bombshell on the medical community by reporting that up to 98,000 people a year die because of mistakes in hospitals. The number was initially disputed, but is now widely accepted by doctors and hospital officials 2014 and quoted ubiquitously in the media.

In 2010, the Office of Inspector General for Health and Human Services said that bad hospital care contributed to the deaths of 180,000 patients in Medicare alone in a given year.

Hell let's outlaw doctors and maybe the gunmen will die before they kill. The fact is that life isn't safe.

You know, just about all these killings are done by people under 35. Let's outlaw people under 35. Kill 'em all so they don't kill anyone. I've been listening to the Censorbot in Borderlands 2 too much.....

[Onkel Neal]

A police officer mistakenly shot and killed a security guard at a bar in Chicago's south suburbs early Sunday morning, Chicago’s Fox 32 reported.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...go-suburbs.amp

[August]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

I trust Americans and I'm not saying they should be disarmed at all, but I am saying in a situation like this, it will end with a terrible result, no matter their intentions.

Ok then give me an example. You claim to know what the response will be in this situation then surely there are some historical examples that back it up right?

If I see a guy with a gun, who is not shooting it, who is in a defensive posture, behind cover with others taking shelter behind him, I am not going to automatically mistake him for a mass shooter, who is going to be doing and acting the exact opposite. People carry concealed weapons for defense not attack and they are going to be painfully aware of the very few rounds they have in their single clip or revolver load so they are not going to expend them without a very clear shot.

Bottom line here is gun free zones do not really make things more safe, they only do half of the mass killers job for him. These zones congregate his victims into one small place, restricts their egress and makes sure they are disarmed. Short of them all lying still and waiting to be shot what more could a mass murderer ask for? I will risk being hit with friendly fire any day over cringing under a table waiting for my turn.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by August

Ok then give me an example. You claim to know what the response will be in this situation then surely there are some historical examples that back it up right?

See above

[August]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

See above

How about an example that doesn't include a trigger happy cop. We were talking about civilians who don't typically feel that they can shoot someone and get away with it.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Funny thing: I'm one of the more leftwing people on this board, but am rabidly progun.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by August

How about an example that doesn't include a trigger happy cop. We were talking about civilians who don't typically feel that they can shoot someone and get away with it.

Sure, right after you post an example where 4 armed citizens drew down on a shooter in a dark, loud, crowded bar.