how to stop a massacre
- Thread starter eagleeyes
- Start date
How much do you charge for a palm reading?
eagleeyes
New member
kelcarry the point was more armed citizens would stop the kind of massacres we are hearing in our news lately ..do you think if students were armed cho would have been able to murder and maim as many as he did ? or if more on that vid were ccwp holders do you think they would gotten away? you see?
Tripletap
New member
This is an awfully popular video....... just sayin:http://www.usacarry.com/forums/gene...-seventy-one-year-old-shoots-two-robbers.html , http://www.usacarry.com/forums/concealed-carry-discussion/28343-enhanced-internet-cafe-video.html ,http://www.usacarry.com/forums/concealed-carry-discussion/27585-internet-cafe-ocala-fla.html , http://www.usacarry.com/forums/colorado-discussion-firearm-news/27597-poster-senior-citizen.html
Got your point eagle, but that video scares the heck out of me. It ended good but it sure looked like it could have been real bad. I'm all for mom, apple pie, no massacres etal but the general call for everyone to be armed and everything will be just honky dorry is pie in the sky and, in many instances, will result in people being killed who would not have been killed. The theatre incident comes to mind---just imagine someone or several people in the audience (who looked or acted like this old guy in the video) standing up and starting to blast at this guy (and each other, by the way since everyone is busy shooting)--do you really think all would have ended well or better? Not necessarily. Do not get me wrong, I understand the criticism to my comments but I also sense a big problem--it is more the incredible ease it is to get a CCWP without proper training that scares me and calls for action only makes many, who have no training, think they can be Dirty Harrys at a moment's notice. Under the stress of these situations, training is key and no training is asking for problems.
That guy didn't stop a massacre, he stopped two punks who wanted to scare people and run off with the money. One guy had a gun, the other a baseball bat. Had the guy with the gun really been a bad ass, the CCW guy might be dead now. You gotta put lead in a bad guy till he is not a threat. I'm not putting the CCW guy down, he did a great job on these punks, but had they been really hard guys he might have gotten shot. But the CCW took care of the situation and because of him those two are in jail so I give him credit for that.
:dirol:
:dirol:
B
Bikenut
Guest
-->heavy sarcasm<-- Of course only people who meet your criteria as being "reasonably", "appropriately", and "acceptably" trained should be "allowed" to carry a gun since most people are so stupid that if they had a gun they would go all "Dirty Harry" at a moment's notice. And those who don't meet your approval.. well... they are so stupid they don't deserve to be able to defend themselves anyway.-->end sarcasm<--
Please tell me which is the bigger problem.... criminals who carry guns illegally and use them to kill innocents? Or innocents carrying guns to defend themselves from the criminals? Who is shooting innocents the most... the criminals or the people legally carrying?
And just imagine the possible outcome of the theater incident where several people legally carrying stood up and blasted the criminal who was shooting all those innocent theater goers. Perhaps there would have been far less than the 12 innocents killed and a bunch more innocents wounded because the bad guy would have been taken out. Or would you prefer none of the theater goers be armed because they didn't qualify for your "acceptable" level of training? Oh wait... the theater goers WERE unarmed.
A general comment:
Every time someone says that the right to bear arms should be subject to some kind of restriction, regardless of the reasons offered, what they really are saying is quite simple... they are saying that they want to be in charge of who is, but more importantly... who isn't "allowed" to carry a gun.
SGB
New member
Well said sir !
eagleeyes
New member
yes you bring up valid points bikenut we don't know for certain how those scenarios would have played out and it could have been a massacre for all we know .....however if more had ccwp's a lot less thugs would even get the notion to do something like that unless they were on a suicide mission.......
i never really wanted to learn about guns much until i decided to get my ccwp and that is when i really started learning and practicing with firearms and i suspect more do that than don't when considering getting their permits imo.....kinda like buying a new tool at homedepot read the manuel on use unless of course you already know how.......i bought a tapcon tool to pound nails into concrete and being i never used one before i read and read again the direction and done a few test tries before actually taking it to the job and getting it done i also bought a router bit to see about laminating a counter top and realized i couldn't figure it out so i didn't use it but still have the thing expensive bit but someday will get someone who knows to show me and practice well before i attempt to do the project in mind
perhaps there are some that do just get a gun and never practiced with it but still shouldn't be prevented from doing so as just drawing in self defense and even missing might deter the threat and that's a chance they should take rather than just getting raped or something imo.....i'd fight back with whatever it took regardless of how experienced i am and i'm not that experienced as i've only been shooting a couple months but feel confident i can use my gun effectively if need be but yes more proficient as time goes on ...i point shoot and pretty good at a fast clean draw and hitting close enough what i want to as i narrow it down to small spot but happy to get within inches .....i have got spot on at times too which gives me more confidence of my aim but i'm still going to the range to further my practice ..i've come a long way from not even wanting to hold a gun to carrying every day except where i can't like swimming or the post office and later court the only places i have to leave the gun at home or locked up in my truck
i never really wanted to learn about guns much until i decided to get my ccwp and that is when i really started learning and practicing with firearms and i suspect more do that than don't when considering getting their permits imo.....kinda like buying a new tool at homedepot read the manuel on use unless of course you already know how.......i bought a tapcon tool to pound nails into concrete and being i never used one before i read and read again the direction and done a few test tries before actually taking it to the job and getting it done i also bought a router bit to see about laminating a counter top and realized i couldn't figure it out so i didn't use it but still have the thing expensive bit but someday will get someone who knows to show me and practice well before i attempt to do the project in mind
perhaps there are some that do just get a gun and never practiced with it but still shouldn't be prevented from doing so as just drawing in self defense and even missing might deter the threat and that's a chance they should take rather than just getting raped or something imo.....i'd fight back with whatever it took regardless of how experienced i am and i'm not that experienced as i've only been shooting a couple months but feel confident i can use my gun effectively if need be but yes more proficient as time goes on ...i point shoot and pretty good at a fast clean draw and hitting close enough what i want to as i narrow it down to small spot but happy to get within inches .....i have got spot on at times too which gives me more confidence of my aim but i'm still going to the range to further my practice ..i've come a long way from not even wanting to hold a gun to carrying every day except where i can't like swimming or the post office and later court the only places i have to leave the gun at home or locked up in my truck
Anyone who has a firearm has a responsibility to understand how to use it to defend themselves and literally anyone. If you are indeed just sarcastic, fine--if you are really telling me that you think anyone should be able to strap on a firearm and go off into the wild blue yonder doing whatever the heck they perceive as being a potential imminent threat, I disagree. I just found the video to be scary not only because of the BGs but because of the "hero". Guess we may not put money down on the same horse very often. Peace and G-d Bless my friend with prayers that all we ever do is talk on this forum and never, ever have to be involved in a real what if.
B
Bikenut
Guest
The part of your post I put in bold serves to prove my point in the following (and I quote myself):
Bikenut said:
Because you are effectively saying that you don't want anyone carrying a gun that YOU don't think is capable of making good decisions because that "scares" you. Thing is... when we start decreeing what standards folks must first meet before they are "allowed" to carry a gun then we have put ourselves in the position of controlling who will be "allowed"...... but more importantly... controlling who will NOT be "allowed".
But the thing that is being misunderstood is quite simple....
Having a "right" means no one is in control of who is "allowed". If someone is in charge of who is "allowed" they are also in charge of who is NOT "allowed". And "NOT allowed" is a direct opposite of "shall not be infringed". In fact, the very concept of "allow/disallow" is in direct opposition to "shall not be infringed".
I implore you to look closely at your post Sir. Please look very closely and perhaps you will see that, although your reasons for restricting the ability to carry a gun to only certain folks sound "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable", they really are nothing more than wanting the right to bear arms to be ..... infringed..... according to a set of standards that you think will "allow" you to not feel "scared". The bad thing about believing the right to bear arms should be subject to a set of standards is..........
Who gets to set the standards? You? Me? Or would it be whatever political agenda happens to be in power at the moment?
The idea that the right to keep and bear arms (actually any right) should be subject to the whims of a government, public opinion, or personal opinion (just so folks won't be "scared") is what scares the hell out of me.
This my friend is an argument that will never be solved---that is why I bet on one horse and you on another. So in your scenario we all should have the "right" to walk around with firearms and shoot anyone we think causes us imminent danger. In your argument, that person will be punished if they have committed a crime--after the fact. The fact that the person just wanted a firearm, has a right to own one, does not really know one end from another and hasn't a clue how to shoot same is sufficient--if you cannot find a fault in your argument, so be it. I understand what you are saying but IMO you argue for arguments sake.
B
Bikenut
Guest
No Sir.. I do not argue for arguments sake. I argue to dispel the notion that it is perfectly Ok to restrict the right to keep and bear arms as long as those restrictions fit someone's opinion of what is "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable" because anyone who is in favor of restricting the right to keep and bear arms, no matter how they might try to justify it, is still in favor of controlling who is, and who is not, "allowed" to carry a gun... and that my friend... is the core premise of gun control.
And the case for restricting the right to bear arms (gun control) is always based in someone wanting to deny someone else because that someone else "scares" them. Arguments in favor of gun control are always based in emotion.
And yes, we ALL should have the unrestricted right to walk around with firearms... but it is your own fears that assume just because folks have guns they will just up and shoot anyone and everyone.
And yes, in my argument folks would be punished for a crime after the fact! ... after they have committed a crime... but you would have them punished by denying them their rights before they have committed any crime. What happened to "innocent before proven guilty"?
And the truth is... the only difference between a rabid "ban all guns from the entire world!" anti gunner and a gun owner who thinks only people who fit their standards of what is "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable", should be "allowed" to carry a gun is...
the degree of gun control they want to impose on other people.
All right, lets carry your reasoning forward:
Who should have the right to defend themselves, and who shouldn't? Who makes that determination?
Who accepts responsibility for the safety of those deemed unfit to defend themselves (and can actually provide for that safety?)
B
Bikenut
Guest
Defending the right to bear arms from folks who think it is "acceptable" to restrict bearing arms for other people according to some arbitrary "reasonable" and/or "appropriate" standard set by those who believe themselves to be qualified to judge who is "acceptable" and who is "NOT acceptable" and who will be "allowed" or "NOT allowed" to exercise a right... IS the best thing to do today.. and tomorrow.. and all the days of my life to the best of my ability.
The only difference between an anti gunner who wants to ban all guns... and someone who purports to support the right to keep and bear arms but wants to ban guns for some people they think are "unacceptable"....
....is only in the amount of control desired. Yet both want to control who is not "allowed" to have/carry guns.
New Threads
-
-
Mystic Seaport Museum, Shelburne Museum Vermont
- Started by Harry45255
- Replies: 0
-
-
Reloading Newbie Here—What’s the Real Cost Advantage?
- Started by michaelstrahan
- Replies: 4
-
Members online
No members online now.