Whether others are actually hitting anything or not, the gunman surely
is ducking a bit, being more cautious in what he's doing. Bullets don't
need to be hitting someone in order to have effect. Most bullets in
combat situations do not hit their marks. Doesn't mean your head isn't
down in the dirt any less!
How does the "Deputy Dawg syndrome" fare when *everyone else* has a gun?
I should think the air of superiority diminishes along with the sense of
The US is definitely a more violent nation than any European nation.
Nonetheless, it's not like firearms were unavailable to the masses
before the last 10-20 years. The US population has always had easy
access to guns, and until recently, never had these sorts of incident
The "wild west" was no where near as violent as our inner cities and
now, apparently, our schools and colleges. Something else is at work
in the US beyond mere access to weaponry.
I'll maintain it is social isolation stemming from our "car culture"
that indirectly creates social isolation. All this is enhanced by
the breakdown of American families. No "Uncle John" or "Grandma
Brown" for "therapy" when troubles occur. Even Mom and Dad, assuming
they are even together, are busy earning cash for the Bimmer and
Merc and 5000 sq ft home and summer house in Maine. And on and on
We're a nation of social isolationists and when lifes challenges
occur, individuals are on their own, without ever learning what
disciplined behavior and solution of problems entails.
Science may be able to do so, but I wonder if we have the political
will to act upon what Science tells us? When personal rights collide
with "scientifically derived indicators of behavior", I suspect science
will lose big time.
If you are going to look at it from a psycological point of view then you must
consider that the people that do these types of things are generally cowards in
the first place and would think twice before commiting such acts.
These are the people that end up going into law enforcement so they end up
carrying a gun anyway.
The perp's accuracy would be greatly reduced if he's seeking cover. The total
number killed would likely be reduced.
It struck me a little wierd that the flags are at half mast. Aren't that many
soldiers dying every week abroad? The news is all about the senseless deaths,
yet they never mention the numbers that die in auto accidents every year. That
number is equal to two full 747s going down every week! I see the "gun banners"
are coming out of the wood work again. They just don't get it.
As soon as some of these schools wake up and start allowing their student
body to protect and defend themselves (God knows the school can't do it),
and another event like this is thwarted because of lawful concealed carry,
then we'll have something to study. Until then, we only have your made-up
"what-if" scenario prejudiced by your own beliefs that guns are bad, and
they make people do bad things with them.
I never said arm everyone. I'm saying allow those who have made the
decision to carry, to do so. Not everyone's comfortable with a weapon
hanging off their hip. That's fine - but don't deny the right of
self-protection to those who want it for themselves.
You mean the added responsibility and the heightened awareness? Yeah,
obviously both bad things...
It's not as I say... it's what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Or better his aim.... seems in this scenario, his mind was pretty-well made
up. And at that point, ANYTHING is preferable to what occurred.
You said, "find a way to keep people from popping a circuit". How exactly
would do you do that? (For the record, I don't believe in mind control, I
don't think there are black helicopters hovering over my house, and I don't
think tin foil make a particularly effective hat)
Yes, probably through DNA screening upon conception, followed by selective
termination of those fetuses deemed "potential threats" to the State....
and so will emerge a master race. Gee, sounds like a wonderful society...
count me out.
Raise the number of guns in society for those that feel they need to
protect themselves and you will have a proportional increase in the
number of idiots carrying a gun. Why? Because an idiot wants the gun
for the same reason as anyone else.
I haven't read any stats that prove that gun owners are less likely to
be a victim of a gun crime.
That said I don't have any desire to take guns away. I just don't want
to make it easier to obtain one. It shouldn't be so easy.
Depends on what state. Anyone without a felony conviction can go buy
one almost as easy as buying a beer at the local 7-11. Sales at gun
shows may need to be looked into to see what can be done. I really
don't know what the best solution is but currently its too easy for any
idiot to easily and quickly obtain a gun. It's more difficult to get a
drivers license than it is a gun.
Okay - so what more do you want done other than a background check? You
claim it's too easy - what do you think will make things 'safer', without
stepping on that pesky little annoyance that some of us like to refer to as
the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution?
Bad analogy. Any idiot can go in and buy a car, as well. To use the
driver's license comparison, you'd need to compare it to one obtaining a
carry permit - which in the vast majority of the states that issue such a
permit (imagine - not being allowed to operate a motor vehicle in a few
states) a training course and competency test is required.... gee, just
like is required for a driver's license.
Not really. With a car one needs to register and license it.
Technically the same as a gun right? Thats where the similarity ends.
If you fail to register and license a car it's very likely you'll get
caught. Not so with a gun. It's easier to get a gun without anyone
knowing you have it.
No you don't. Only if you intend on driving legally around on public
roads would you need to do any of that. If you are going to a crowded
place to run people over who cares. Slap some stolen plates on, find a
crowd, punch gas pedal. IT'S TO EASY! SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!
SBJ: Dumb brake question
SBJ: Snoball Defense System v1.01
Gun owners may be just as likely to be the intended victim of a crime, but
according to the US dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, each
year about 2 million crimes are prevented by an armed citizen. That's about
5 times more often than when guns are used in the commission of a crime. Of
course, those numbers only reflect what is reported to law enforcement.
What do you base that on?
A few items of interest
-Florida's Homicide rate dropped from 37% above the national average to 3%
below the national average after the state changed it's concealed carry law
-A study conducted by Don B. Kates Jr., at the St. Louis University School
of Law found that while police were successful in shooting or driving off
criminals 68% of the time private citizens succeeded 83% of the time. And,
while 11% of the individuals involved in police shootings were later found
to be innocent people who were misidentified as criminals, only 2% of those
in civilian shootings were misidentified. Finally private citizens in urban
areas encounter and kill up to 3 times as many criminals as do law
-Another, goverment funded survey of 1,874 felons conducted by Peter Rossi
and James Wright found that 40% of the felons said they decided not to
commit a crime because the feared the citizen was carring a firearm. 34%
had been scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed citizen.
I can't find the supporting evidence, but I remember reading a study several
years ago that if 10% of the population has a concealed firearm the crime
rate drops dramatically.
I don't think your scenario has much basis in fact.
Why don't we base the scenario on what gun-totin' AZpunkinhead just
wrote in the _other_ gun thread?
"You're DAMN right if someone breaks into my house I am going to shoot
them!! Why the fuck would you feel other wise? You're right, it is
not up to me to prove "he" was armed and that my life or that of my
family was in danger. It is up to the "state pros" to prove that my
life and/or that of my families WASN"T."
Let see, a thug breaks a window or door to get into my house, weapon
in hand. I am in bed, pistol very near by (with in arms reach from
laying in bed) and loaded as it always is, you HONESTLY think that I
can not reach my pistol and be at ready to protect me and my family?
You honestly think that I would not be awoken by noises and such
around my house that are out of the norm? Damn man, are you that
BTW, unlike a gun toting "thug" I am tried to engage a target and
shoot for a kill. I am trained to do so under pressure, under extreme
circumstances, and do it calmly and effectively. A feening dope head
and/or your "common" thug most likely will not be able to do the same,
so who do you think will come out alive if it came to it?"
Punkin is exactly the sort who will bolt out of bed firing at that
shadowy "thug", then turn on the light and discover that he's just shot
his own kid. I've read it before.
If a .357 Magnum would be your choice of weapons, then I think you are a
clueless short dicked egghead. Clueless short dicked eggheads prefer large
caliber pistols and lift kits on their trucks. You could kill someone a
mile away with one of those rounds. They will definitely go through several
layers of home construction.
There is nothing like a shotgun for home defense. And a pump, at that.
Very reliable. Don't have to be very accurate. Just cocking it in the dark
is enough to make a grown man wet themselves. The projectiles don't travel
nearly as far as a regular bullet. But you knew that, right, Mr. Gun
Firing a .357 Magnum wildly, with other people in the house in unknown
locations. Well, at least the chances are VERY GOOD that you will kill
SOMEONE. And don't forget to get the extra capacity clip for the revolver.
I have the five shot S&W Stainless model with 2" barrel as a carry weapon.
If you find the big clips, please let me know where, so I can buy one. And
where can I get a REALLY big holster for that combo?
Steve ......... ;-)
And you're talking about what, in particular?
Please notice the smiley face at the end.
Anyone who would consider a .357 pistol as a home defense weapon obviously
doesn't know a lot about ballistics.
Hint: the part about the clip for the revolver and the part about the
holster for said combination was a joke, son.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.