(October 1, 2015 at 8:27 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(October 1, 2015 at 6:03 pm)Cecelia Wrote: They have this gun-porn fantasy of stepping in and being the hero by shooting an assailant, when they're far more likely to shoot an innocent person, or miss and end up getting shot themselves.

Numbers?  Do you have data?

Simulations have been run by law enforcement have shown that untrained (and even those with some training) are unlikely to hit an assailant in a shooting.

An article and a video demonstrating:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=7298996&page=1








(from the article) "You have to be able to know what your target is; but you also have to know what's behind your target, what's around your target; you're very responsible for everything," Benton said. "One stray bullet that misses and hits a bystander, you're responsible for it."


The stress of the situation and the psychological effects are greater than most people realize.  That's why there's so much police training.  They don't jump in there, and day one are ready to react to a shooting. Even if you handle guns all the time, you don't handle them under the stressful situation of someone shooting back at you. 

Also keep in mind that shooting a handgun is harder than any other type of gun. 

Many law enforcement officers that I know echo similar opinions that untrained civilians aren't likely to successfully stop a mass shooting.  It's nothing like a video game, or out at the range where bullets aren't flying back.  The results of this simulation are what you'd expect.  Imagine trying to shoot someone with a handgun (which are fairly inaccurate to begin with) in a crowded and dark theater.  Or in a classroom with people screaming and running everywhere.  It's not as easy as the movies makes it look.  Which is why it's so rare that an armed civilian stops a mass shooting.  It's a pipe dream of many gun enthusiasts who want to get to shoot someone.

Keep in mind most states have little to no requirements for a concealed carry permit.  

This is actually old news.  Gun Nut Nation does not want to hear it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...-bad-idea/

Quote:The Science of Guns Proves Arming Untrained Citizens Is a Bad Idea

For fuck's sake.  Someone on my facebook said that it's being reported that the shooter was an atheist but the poster offered no reference for the statement, so I started googling and came across this little nugget

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio.../73153610/

Quote:[John] Hanlin, the Douglas County sheriff overseeing the investigation [of the Umpqua Community College shootings], has been vocal in opposing state and federal gun-control legislation.

Hanlin registered his opposition this year as state lawmakers considered requiring background checks on private, person-to-person gun sales.

Hanlin told a legislative committee in March that a background-check mandate wouldn't prevent criminals from getting firearms.

He said the state should combat gun violence by cracking down on convicted criminals found with guns, and by addressing people with unmanaged mental health issues.

Hanlin also sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden in 2013, after the shooting at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school. Hanlin said he and his deputies would refuse to enforce new gun-control restrictions "offending the constitutional rights of my citizens."

From CBS:

An online dating profile that appears to belong to Mercer lists his hobbies and interests as "Internet, killing zombies, movies, music, reading." Under ethnicity, it says "mixed race" and his relationship status says "single -- never married."

The profile also says he is currently in college and lives with his parents, is a Republican and not religious. It also says he doesn't smoke, drink or do drugs.

One of the groups on the site that he belongs to is called "Doesn't Like Organized Religion."


That's probably where they get the idea he was an atheist.

Well, he wasn't an atheist. He was a Wooist.

http://heavy.com/news/2015/10/chris-harp...stagram/2/

And guns are good why?

Especially when any nutjob can get one and go on a killing spree?

(October 2, 2015 at 12:46 am)Kitan Wrote: And guns are good why?

Especially when any nutjob can get one and go on a killing spree?

Well, how else  do you propose we grant our police officers an excuse to claim they were afraid enough of our minorities to shoot enough of them to keep the others in line out of fear of authority?

Dogdamn, Kitan, do you know nothing of American social structure!?  

(October 2, 2015 at 12:55 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Well, how else  do you propose we grant our police officers an excuse to claim they were afraid enough of our minorities to shoot enough of them to keep the others in line out of fear of authority?

Dogdamn, Kitan, do you know nothing of American social structure!?  

Okay, Zimmerman. >.>

(October 1, 2015 at 9:18 pm)KUSA Wrote: Has any psychology expert ever figured out why some people want to murder kids in school?

Doing something like this is unimaginable to me. I like my guns but no matter what I had going on in my life this is something that I would never do. It just doesn't make sense to me.

So, what is going on in the heads of these screwed up people?

Mental and emotional development are genetic and environmental. Worship of death, devaluation of life, restriction of education, provides wide-spread pathological violence.

(October 1, 2015 at 8:52 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote:

(October 1, 2015 at 8:26 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: You might be surprised to learn that people who have no compunction about breaking a law by killing people aren't dissuaded by a law forbidding gun ownership.

It's kind of the definition of "criminal", you know.


No, it's an apt right that should have better limits.

Your first point is legitimate.

Second point, a right? Really? It's illegal to carry a gun in public here and I'm perfectly happy with that, never seen it as an infringement of my rights and I think most British people probably feel that way. Guess I'm not waking up paranoid someone is going to shoot me today. I can be comfortable in that assumption, yknow, given it's so hard to get guns here.

We don't have repeated incidents of crazy kids going into schools on a rampage, while America does. We have far lower gun crime rates than America does. We have tightly controlled gun laws, America doesn't. Not a coincidence.

You also have a different culture and society. Characterizing gun-owners as fearful is not really reflective of our society. Britain is a small country well-tamed long before the age of gunpowder; America is a trans-continental nation that was wilderness where a gun was as much a tool as a plough in its taming, which happened much more recently than the settling of Britain. It's all good and well to look down your nose, but the fact is that the backdrop renders the picture entirely different, and failing to take those differences into account is not very useful.


We certainly have a gun problem, and steps certainly must be taken. But the idea of importing a solution as if a cookie -cutter can cut the same shape is overly simplistic, to me.

This shooting didn't arise from a paranoid gun-owner. It is not a result of redneck gun culture. Pointing your finger at that makes, perhaps, for good talking points, but in the end generates more heat than light.

And yes, it is a right in America to own a gun. Look it up.