D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-11-2015, 04:57 PM
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
(23-11-2015 04:09 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 12:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  If you don't think she meant using firearms, just what do you think she meant? Consider

It could mean using a gun if you have one and have a clear shot on the dangerous individual or it could mean tackling (or otherwise incapacitate him with your own two hands or an improvised weapon while he got his back turned or is distracted) him down like the maniac who shot with an AK-47 on the White House a decade ago, or the the gunman who failed is attack in French train or that teenager in Nova Scotia about five years ago who was disarmed by a teacher. Its not like a gun is the only way to stop an armed men, but its probably the easiest one if the most risky in case you miss your shot.

That's pretty thin reasoning. How many people will engage a shooter if they are not themselves armed? Very few, as history shows.

Please explain what is so risky. The shooter in those situations is not surrounded be potential victims.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2015, 05:05 PM
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
(23-11-2015 04:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  That's pretty thin reasoning. How many people will engage a shooter if they are not themselves armed? Very few, as history shows.

Ben Carson?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2015, 05:12 PM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2015 06:29 PM by Momsurroundedbyboys.)
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
(23-11-2015 01:56 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 01:17 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Again, why does the president need the secret service? Why does the secret service follow around candidates for president? Why protect not just them, but also close staff or family?

So you must be all for dismissing them as well?

I don't see it as hypocrisy. Sorry I don't see myself or you as being more important than the President (or a governor, mayor, congress member or senator -- whether I agree or disagree with their brand of politics).

But again whatever.

I guess that's the difference between the two sides. You think your elected leaders are more important than you. They are bound to a different set of rules. They agree with you. To them you are subjects.

The other side thinks everyone has the right to self defense. The right wing politician has armed security, and he is just fine with everyone else being armed as well.

So the right wing politician who allows you to carry a gun, is incapable of viewing you as a subject?

Because they let you carry a gun you think they're better or care more about you? Or maybe because they'll let you have more guns you're gullible to believe they care and can continue to vote for them so they can take the freedoms of others.

But you'll get to keep your guns, until eventually they decide it's too dangerous for you have one...because you don't believe in God.

We've already had several presidential candidates tell us that if someone doesn't pray or believe, they shouldn't hold office and that gays shouldn't marry, reproductive rights for women shouldn't exist.....

But yeah, you worry about your guns no one is going to take.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
23-11-2015, 05:29 PM
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
(23-11-2015 04:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  That's pretty thin reasoning. How many people will engage a shooter if they are not themselves armed? Very few, as history shows.

About 1 in 8 according to the federales.

An FBI report released in 2014 examined 160 active shooting incidents between 2000 and 2013. Of the 160 incidents in the study, 21 were stopped by unarmed civilians. Six more were stopped by armed guards and off-duty police officers. Only one was stopped by a concealed-carry permit holder, who happened to be a highly trained U.S. Marine. In this highly analyzed sample, unarmed citizens did a better job at preventing tragedy than civilians wielding firearms.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
23-11-2015, 05:54 PM
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
(23-11-2015 04:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 04:09 PM)epronovost Wrote:  It could mean using a gun if you have one and have a clear shot on the dangerous individual or it could mean tackling (or otherwise incapacitate him with your own two hands or an improvised weapon while he got his back turned or is distracted) him down like the maniac who shot with an AK-47 on the White House a decade ago, or the the gunman who failed is attack in French train or that teenager in Nova Scotia about five years ago who was disarmed by a teacher. Its not like a gun is the only way to stop an armed men, but its probably the easiest one if the most risky in case you miss your shot.

That's pretty thin reasoning. How many people will engage a shooter if they are not themselves armed? Very few, as history shows.

Please explain what is so risky. The shooter in those situations is not surrounded be potential victims.

Actually, very few people will engage a shooter even if they are armed. Gun fight are spectacularly scary, especially if you are taken by surprise and have little combat training. There is a reason why adult dippers are common in a soldier gear. In times of high stress you will shit your pants. The first reaction of most people will be to freeze than to seek cover which is far from being stupid considering the situation. Strongly ingrained education against killing other humans can also slow down reaction time. Having a weapon doesn't make you braver, calmer and smarter in a violent ambush situation.

You might also want to remember that small caliber bullets have a bad tendency to ricochet on hard surface, not to mention that in the chaos of a mass shooting (especially at the beginning), with people scrambling for cover, screaming, high stress, lots of mouvement, there is plenty of opportunity to hit someone by accident either with a bad ricochet or with someone litterally running in the trajectory of the bullet. Furthermore, mass shooters have taken the habit of wearing body armor, which means a direct hit with a small caliber pistol on the torso, the most viable target, will not stop them most of the time. In those cases, they will turn and shoot in your direction which will result in a good old shoot out which is never a good news for those cought in it (the fact that those gunman have high suicidal tendency makes them especially dangerous). Finally, stress, fear and chaos will most likely result in a tunnel vision caused by adrenaline, tremors in your hands and arm and a tendency to empty a magasine instead of shooting two or three precise bullets. This reduce field of vision, poorer accuracy generated by stress and higher fire rate will augment the risk of you hurting yourself or an innocent. Considering the favorite spot for crazed mass shooters are theatres and schools, two area with a lot of people in relatively small room and few exit, it's to no surprise that any police force will ask people to hide from danger rather than fight to avoid adding to the chaos and injuring even more people. Is it possible to take down a shooter safely with a gun when you are a civilian in such a situation? Yes, but it requires a favorable situation and a lot more calm than one might think.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2015, 05:57 PM
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
(23-11-2015 05:29 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 04:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  That's pretty thin reasoning. How many people will engage a shooter if they are not themselves armed? Very few, as history shows.

About 1 in 8 according to the federales.

An FBI report released in 2014 examined 160 active shooting incidents between 2000 and 2013. Of the 160 incidents in the study, 21 were stopped by unarmed civilians. Six more were stopped by armed guards and off-duty police officers. Only one was stopped by a concealed-carry permit holder, who happened to be a highly trained U.S. Marine. In this highly analyzed sample, unarmed citizens did a better job at preventing tragedy than civilians wielding firearms.

There aren't enough armed civilians, obviously. Big Grin

Those data need to be seen through the lens of the shooters' target selections.
Armed civilians are pretty thin on the ground in schools and churches.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-11-2015, 06:26 PM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2015 06:32 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
(23-11-2015 05:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 05:29 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  About 1 in 8 according to the federales.

An FBI report released in 2014 examined 160 active shooting incidents between 2000 and 2013. Of the 160 incidents in the study, 21 were stopped by unarmed civilians. Six more were stopped by armed guards and off-duty police officers. Only one was stopped by a concealed-carry permit holder, who happened to be a highly trained U.S. Marine. In this highly analyzed sample, unarmed citizens did a better job at preventing tragedy than civilians wielding firearms.

There aren't enough armed civilians, obviously. Big Grin

Those data need to be seen through the lens of the shooters' target selections.
Armed civilians are pretty thin on the ground in schools and churches.

"Of note, 11 of the [21] incidents involved unarmed principals, teachers, other school staff and students who confronted shooters to end the threat (9 of those shooters were students)."

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2015, 06:46 PM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2015 07:04 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
(23-11-2015 01:56 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I guess that's the difference between the two sides.

Why you think there are only 2 sides? It's a goddam Rubik's cube not some fucking coin toss. Tongue

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
23-11-2015, 07:14 PM
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
(23-11-2015 06:46 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 01:56 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I guess that's the difference between the two sides.

Why you think there are only 2 sides? It's a goddam Rubik's cube not some fucking coin toss. Tongue

Yeah, that. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2015, 07:16 PM
RE: D.C. Police chief changing stance on guns??
(23-11-2015 06:26 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 05:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  There aren't enough armed civilians, obviously. Big Grin

Those data need to be seen through the lens of the shooters' target selections.
Armed civilians are pretty thin on the ground in schools and churches.

"Of note, 11 of the [21] incidents involved unarmed principals, teachers, other school staff and students who confronted shooters to end the threat (9 of those shooters were students)."

How many school shootings weren't stopped by an unarmed person?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: