LGBT Srike Back ~ The Pink Pistols

[Jello]

Don't like guns? Don't carry one.

That's kinda like saying "Don't like being shot? Don't get shot." 


Not all that helpful

[Thumpalumpacus]

It must be horrible to live in a country where you could get shot easily.

I think bad drivers are more dangerous. I haven't been shot at in years, I almost went into the median barrier recently trying to avoid 2 dueling lane hoppers.

This.

[account_inactive]

-edit-

[paulpablo]

I understand their wish for safety and the desire to defend themselves when being attacked. But, as always, just think of what would have happened if many people had been armed in that club. Probably dark, obviously crowded, hardly any one of them with combat training, understandably panicked. I guess there would have been even more victims, due to friendly fire.

Which is why I bring up the FBI report in that Daily Show clip, written by the head of ALERRT'S Pete Blair. The  odds of civilian with no cop or military crisis shooting training successfully stopping an active shooter is only 3%. The odds of injury or death in the home from use of a gun is far greater.

And no record at time of buy doesn't stop the person from hurting themselves or someone else after a legal purchase.

That's not the way those statistics really add up.

3.1% of shooters were stopped after exchanging gunfire with a civilian with no police or military background.

So first of all that doesn't take into account shooters that were stopped from the threat of an armed civilian and no gunfire was exchanged.

Second of all it isn't a reflection on what happens when civilians are armed and their inefficiency at stopping shooters because a lot of shooters either target or just happen to be in areas where guns aren't there or aren't allowed, for example the majority of school shootings, the recent night club shooting and so on.

None of this is a reflection on my opinions of the gun control debate I just can't help but notice the use of those statistics seems dishonest to me if you're going to use that percentage of people stopped by exchange of gunfire with civilians to try and say civilians are inefficient at stopping shooters.

[abaris]

Doesn't change the fact that in a packed room with many shooters, without proper combat training of any kind, chances of friendly fire a higher than actually picking the one and only valid target at first try.

As I said repeatedly. I have been in a shootout. Short one and not explicitly targeted at me. But even if I had had a gun, I wouldn't have known where to turn to, since my body and mind, not properly trained, simply refused to work at normal capacity. I would be hard pressed to even give an account of what was happening.

[paulpablo]

Doesn't change the fact that in a packed room with many shooters, without proper combat training of any kind, chances of friendly fire a higher than actually picking the one and only valid target at first try.

As I said repeatedly. I have been in a shootout. Short one and not explicitly targeted at me. But even if I had had a gun, I wouldn't have known where to turn to, since my body and mind, not properly trained, simply refused to work at normal capacity. I would be hard pressed to even give an account of what was happening.

Well yeh I've never been in a shooting and I imagine it's absolute chaos. That's why I found it really odd when Brian was presenting those 3.1% odds of something happening in a situation that's so chaotically variable I don't see how even the FBI could calculate that.
They weren't presented as odds anyway as I said.
People's reactions to stress are as variable as the shooting scenario itself.

[abaris]

People's reactions to stress are as variable as the shooting scenario itself.

OK, simple experiment, if you wish. I don't know if you play video games, but Fallout 4 stuck out to me in that department. Like many games it involves quite a lot of fighting. And, of course, no danger involved for the player sitting behind their desktop. Now add night and many persons firing at each other. Do you want to guess how often I hit a friendly instead of an enemy?

As I said, it's a game, no pressure, just your normal vision in dark conditions with many armed people involved. No nerves, no stress.

That's what combat training is for. Steeling people for that kind of situations and to hone their reflexes.

[Rhondazvous]

People's reactions to stress are as variable as the shooting scenario itself.

OK, simple experiment, if you wish. I don't know if you play video games, but Fallout 4 stuck out to me in that department. Like many games it involves quite a lot of fighting. And, of course, no danger involved for the player sitting behind their desktop. Now add night and many persons firing at each other. Do you want to guess how often I hit a friendly instead of an enemy?

As I said, it's a game, no pressure, just your normal vision in dark conditions with many armed people involved. No nerves, no stress.

That's what combat training is for. Steeling people for that kind of situations and to hone their reflexes.

And I doubt they're going to get that level of training in a gun club. Instead you'll have a lot of righteous Marshall Dillon wannabees shooting first and asking questions later.

Maybe they'll start a new nightclub trend: one or two friends won't drink because they're the designated shooters.

[paulpablo]

People's reactions to stress are as variable as the shooting scenario itself.

OK, simple experiment, if you wish. I don't know if you play video games, but Fallout 4 stuck out to me in that department. Like many games it involves quite a lot of fighting. And, of course, no danger involved for the player sitting behind their desktop. Now add night and many persons firing at each other. Do you want to guess how often I hit a friendly instead of an enemy?

As I said, it's a game, no pressure, just your normal vision in dark conditions with many armed people involved. No nerves, no stress.

That's what combat training is for. Steeling people for that kind of situations and to hone their reflexes.

If it's just a game I imagine that would increase the amount of friendly fire because there would be no consequences.

My original point is that the 3.1% odds statistic is misleading and the variables of any shooting situation are too vast.

Variables like building design, emotions, firearms used, numbers of people, the atmosphere of the people as in are they drunk, happy, celebratory and so on.

I'm not going to say any shooter could or couldn't have been stopped or innocent people would likely have been killed because it depends on all these things.
If a shooter walks in with a huge rifle and he's encumbered with ammo and he's in the centre of a bright dance floor with other armed people present, maybe some stood behind I'd say he's likely to be stopped.
If it's in a foggy night club with tight corridors and the other person who is armed is jittery and nervous it will be more difficult.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I understand the knee jerk reaction. I hope they all follow through with training and safety. If not, they are better off without a gun.

Training should be one of the requirements to own a gun in the first place.

I understand the sentiment and do not entirely disagree. But the goal of some lawmakers is not to encourage responsible gun ownership but rather to eliminate the hardware altogether. Are there some people who shouldn't have guns? Absolutely. Are their some people who shouldn't have children? Surely. But we don't make people get licenses to have children because reproduction is a basic human right. Self-defense against criminals and tyrants that would deprive people of their liberty is also a human right. In a free society, there will be criminals with guns. There has always been a balance between security and liberty. Liberty comes at a price. It is true of guns as it is of massive data collection by the government.

The 2nd amendment is a individual right, yes, but the clear goal of the 2nd amendment was a populace capable of using them to defend their liberties and those around them as needed. To my mind, "reasonable gun control" would not focus on the hardware; but rather regulate how and where the hardware can be used. For example, I would say that anyone who passes the basic criminal background checks (that already exist) should be able to own a gun and use it on private property (homes, private woods, farms, shooting ranges, etc) or designated public lands. They would also be allowed to transport their gun in either a locked container or inoperable condition. In order to carry a functional gun in a public way they should have to demonstrate some level of competency with their weapon such as being able to break down and reassemble it and achieve a minimum level of marksmanship.