Reply With Quote
OkWhat a ing pussy
So you don't trust them around people, because they won't just discharge without human influence.
OkWhat a ing pussy
no I don't shoot I've got a barrier of 30+ people between the shooter and me. You don't carry to be a hero you carry to protect you and your family. First option get the out of there last option shoot.
You could say that. And "people" would include me. I don't feel comfortable around them, and so I avoid being around them when I can.
Cool that is what I thought but just wanted to clarify.
I get the idea of CCW as a general strategy to make potential killers second guess whether they can get away with a violent crime, but I'm not sure how it prevents an incident like this where the killer seemed to be willing to die anyway. There's no way you ever get a shot off on him more quickly than he'd get several off on a crowd of people, and like you said, that wouldn't be the safe play anyway. Also, the more people carrying, the more likely it is that someone tries to be a hero and kills more people in the crossfire.
Well, when I say malfunction, I mean accidental discharges (vs negligent). Which are extremely rare, but do happen. IE: manufacturing defect, somebody doing shoddy gunsmithing work, something breaking internally in an old gun, defective ammo, etc.
So it's not all about lack of trust on the person. It's also minimizing already extremely small odds.
FauxNews has stopped their live coverage because the shooter is a distressed white male and doesn't have a "terrorist" like name.
going by the 2nd definition, there is nothing that suggests his act is political (yet), based on the targeted victims. had he shot up a building of government officials, for instance, i'd say yes
I barely trust cops with guns. No way I trust wannabe Charles Bronsons in a dark theater. Stay the home if you are that scared.
You completely misunderstand CCW if this is what you believe. It's not about making a criminal second guess. It's not about preventing incidents. It's not about being a hero. It is simply giving yourself more of a chance compared to the guy who isn't CCW'ing, however small that chance may be.
Domestic terrorism. Period.
I've already shown the accuracy of CCW holders who fire their weapon compared to police I don't feel like digging it up again. It's not even close and the amount of innocents police hit is embarrassing. You'd be much much safer around a CCW'er than a cop by far.
I'd be much safer if you kept your scared ass home.
Then I think there are a lot of CCW supporters misunderstanding what it means because I constantly hear the argument that if nobody is legally carrying guns, criminals with guns will know they are free to kill with no risk.
Frankly I don't trust the American population at large to agree on your definition if they're all armed.
But that said, based on what you consider CCW to be about, I take it you agree that anyone who suggests this incident would have been prevented if more people in the theater had guns is a moron.
Ahh, the arbiter of "terrorism" has spoken. I can sleep safely in my bed. He did not start this non-terror thread. But he's open to the terror possibilities. It is so refreshing to hear, since the shooter doesn't sound very Muslim. But WE SHALL SEE.
You don't leave the basement often so no need to worry about me.
I don't know if this is domestic terrorism, but the church shooting was for sure.
Prevented no. Minimalized casualties possibly.
Nah, he's a white guy. He'll be labeled as mentally ill.
I go out all the time, free from the crippling fear you experience every day.
I hope you are on this list in the very near future: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...-we-dont-know/
Sincerely,
Splits
Wrong. Federal charges did not include "terrorism"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
