GOOD MAN WITH A GUN: Man With AR-15 Saves Neighbor From Stabbing Attack

[Pavlov]

your searching means nothing to me or anyone else. you claim this or that, provide no evidence, claim you went and searched, and then have the gall to tell others to do the leg work when you demand the leg work be done for you if this was reversed.

That's the whole point -- none of you ever do any of the work.

You're just ranting puddles of emotion.

[spurraider21]

see if we are discussing mass killings then how do you just dismiss the examples i provided? is it because you only want to discuss guns and not other means of more casualty ridden events? if we are discussing mass killings in general then we need to look at weapons used and total destruction by said weapons, not what weapon might be more prone to be used in mass killings.

if 9/11 killed more innocent lives than that of all massacres in the USA, done with firearms, in the last 30 yrs then why aren't we just discussing planes as a viable weapon and needing to rid our society of such a destructive force? instead we get longer security lines, pat downs, etc... where's the outrage?

dealing with this parkland scenario is more than just, "ar-15 and semi's need to be banned!". let's start taking the licenses away from the medical professionals who dropped the ball on this kid or the badges from the fbi and pd officers who also dropped the ball? it's always the guns until more and more info slips through the cracks that most likely ends up dismissed in the minds of those who can't see the forest from the trees.

i dont dismiss them. im addressing by far the most common means

[spurraider21]

Would you walk into a gun store and think "this poses a threat"?

Of course not. Bombs, sure. They can go off any time. The gun threat is a person threat. When the threat is neutralized, the gun still exists.

This obvious distinction gets glassed over in these types of conversations, as if the gun itself is the issue. Granted, someone who wants to kill would have an easier time with a gun than without it, but the issue is that the person wants to kill you and that the person is able to kill a lot of you because you are herded into a box under the guise of being safe. You're not safe. You cannot get rid of guns, not you as an individual. Therefore if you want to have the best survival chances, you avoid being trapped and you avoid being unable to defend yourself. That seems like simple survival sense.


Since it's not feasible, I don't want to be on the victim side of the equation because I wanted to make a gun free zone personal statement by being vulnerable.

Because hurdles aren't barriers. I don't care to add another sandbag to the breached levy just to watch it wash away, and pretend I tried. Like you said, you cannot guarantee my safety from guns, so you cannot remove my right to defend myself with equal force.

photos from paddocks hotel room

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/24/new-ph...eople-7255894/

there is absolutely no good reason why it is legal for a person to own that much destructive capability, where every act up until pulling the trigger is completely legal. go ahead and conceal carry a pistol... thats not going to protect you from somebody who owns THAT amount of damage.

im simplifying to issue to those pictures. lets find a way to NOT make that legal. because there's no good that can come out of that being legal

[DMC]

photos from paddocks hotel room

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/24/new-ph...eople-7255894/

there is absolutely no good reason why it is legal for a person to own that much destructive capability, where every act up until pulling the trigger is completely legal. go ahead and conceal carry a pistol... thats not going to protect you from somebody who owns THAT amount of damage.

im simplifying to issue to those pictures. lets find a way to NOT make that legal. because there's no good that can come out of that being legal

The large majority of people who get killed by guns aren't being killed by people who own that much hardware (the US Military not withstanding).

You can only use one gun at a time. With a suppressed sniper rifle he could have killed 100 people, by moving around to different locations. It wouldn't have the same sensational carnage, but it's possible. Look at the DC shooter. If they weren't so stupid, they could have gone a lot longer and had a longer body count. Imagine if they had suppressed weapons and a real plan.

The "dumb" part of your stance is that you think collectively that cache is more deadly than the guy holding one firearm, but he was a guy holding one firearm at any given point. It's like looking at a lake and saying "that much water could drown too many people, no one should own that much water".

Here's where a lot of non-gun people up. Would it be more acceptable if a group of people all owned one gun each? Where would they buy them? Would it be from a guy who had a FFL and sold guns? Did this guy have an FFL? So having an FFL gets you over the barricade for owning an arsenal, because it's under the umbrella of an LLC ergo not privately owned. The person can therefore own a lot of things. Couple that with the SOT and Class 3 and the dude can own brand new fully automatic weapons by the truckload, as long as he has a letter from a LEO chief stating they want to demo them.

[spurraider21]

The large majority of people who get killed by guns aren't being killed by people who own that much hardware (the US Military not withstanding).

You can only use one gun at a time. With a suppressed sniper rifle he could have killed 100 people, by moving around to different locations. It wouldn't have the same sensational carnage, but it's possible. Look at the DC shooter. If they weren't so stupid, they could have gone a lot longer and had a longer body count. Imagine if they had suppressed weapons and a real plan.

The "dumb" part of your stance is that you think collectively that cache is more deadly than the guy holding one firearm, but he was a guy holding one firearm at any given point. It's like looking at a lake and saying "that much water could drown too many people, no one should own that much water".

no, i think its more or less an eye opening scene that makes you wonder why on earth this should ever be ok

[Pavlov]

Water?

[DMC]

no, i think its more or less an eye opening scene that makes you wonder why on earth this should ever be ok

It's not eye opening to people who own and understand the limitations of firearms. If I had a house full of guns, it wouldn't make me any more deadly than if I had just one.

[DMC]

Water?

Abstract concept. Philo understands.

[Pavlov]

Abstract concept. Philo understands.

water

[Pavlov]

It's not eye opening to people who own and understand the limitations of firearms. If I had a house full of guns, it wouldn't make me any more deadly than if I had just one.

If you have one gun and it jams, are you more or less deadly at that moment?

[spurraider21]

It's not eye opening to people who own and understand the limitations of firearms. If I had a house full of guns, it wouldn't make me any more deadly than if I had just one.

you're not killing 50+ people with a single 12 gauge

[Pavlov]

Oh, let's see if this works -- if you have one water and it jams, are you more or less deadly at that moment?

[DMC]

you're not killing 50+ people with a single 12 gauge

Not at 500 yards.

What's an acceptable number of people? If there are two people in my path vs one, am I now more deadly even with the same weapon?

Are we arguing over body count? The overwhelming large majority of gun related homicides are one person deaths. Many by shotgun. The number of people killed with AR-15s nationwide pales to the number killed by revolvers.

But we're focused on single events that carry sensational news coverage, with unsuspecting people. 30 kids in Chicago could be shot over the weekend, it probably doesn't make a syndicated column.

[Chucho]

so why do mass murders in the US use guns way more often than they use bombs?

Statistically, Americsn society is stupider and lazier than anytime in the last 100 years. Stats don't lie. They don't know how to make a bomb and if they did, they wouldn't bother, it takes too much time and effort. Americans are spoiled by modern technology.

/flawed numbers logic argument (the "California is actually a great place right now" argument)

[Pavlov]

Not at 500 yards.

But it's a gun -- you said it's just as deadly no matter what. Turns out it's not.

Go figure.

[DMC]

But it's a gun -- you said it's just as deadly no matter what. Turns out it's not.

Go figure.

When did I say that?

Turns out you're full of .

[Pavlov]

When did I say that?

Turns out you're full of .

Oh, so some guns can be more deadly than others.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Thanks.

[spurraider21]

Not at 500 yards.

What's an acceptable number of people? If there are two people in my path vs one, am I now more deadly even with the same weapon?

Are we arguing over body count? The overwhelming large majority of gun related homicides are one person deaths. Many by shotgun. The number of people killed with AR-15s nationwide pales to the number killed by revolvers.

But we're focused on single events that carry sensational news coverage, with unsuspecting people. 30 kids in Chicago could be shot over the weekend, it probably doesn't make a syndicated column.

i think we can start with these mass shootings, as they are senseless and often with little to no warning (see, orlando nightclub, vegas). most of these one person deaths are situations where the killer knows the victim, and there was a series of events that led to the shooting. that doesn't make it more ok, but its easier to cope with those, since you can distance yourself from them. "oh, a drug dealer killing a gangbanger doesn't really ruin my day, since i wouldn't be in that situation to begin with."

cant say the same about being at a concert, a movie theater, or dropping your kid off at school

Statistically, Americsn society is stupider and lazier than anytime in the last 100 years. Stats don't lie. They don't know how to make a bomb and if they did, they wouldn't bother, it takes too much time and effort. Americans are spoiled by modern technology.

/flawed numbers logic argument (the "California is actually a great place right now" argument)

awesome. so we can lay to rest the "if they dont have guns, they'd all just use bombs" crap

[Chucho]

awesome. so we can lay to rest the "if they dont have guns, they'd all just use bombs" crap

Oh yeah. Never a fallacy when using statistics. Now them Arabs tho, those studious towel heads are some A+ bomb makers. They obviously need more guns to drive down the bombings.

[DMC]

i think we can start with these mass shootings, as they are senseless and often with little to no warning (see, orlando nightclub, vegas). most of these one person deaths are situations where the killer knows the victim, and there was a series of events that led to the shooting. it's more avoidable.

They are all avoidable however there are more unsuspecting victims of single victim crimes than mass crimes. Mass crimes get more attention. Maybe think about acknowledging that. The placebo would be to do something about mass shootings but nothing about the 100 people killed everyday in the US.

awesome. so we can lay to rest the "if they dont have guns, they'd all just use bombs" crap

That's a strawman. The point if that argument is that intent is the culprit. You can kill a lot of people with just bombs (see Timothy McVeigh) and airplanes (see the World Trade Center). Since people like to talk about statistics of having a gun in your home: You're much more likely to be shot by your own relative than in a mass shooting. So disarm your relatives.

[DMC]

Oh, so some guns can be more deadly than others.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Thanks.

I didn't ask for the opposite. I called you out on your claim.

Where did I say "it's just as deadly no matter what"? as you claim I did above? Either rescind that or show where I said it.

[Pavlov]

I didn't ask for the opposite. I called you out on your claim.

Where did I say "it's just as deadly no matter what"? as you claim I did above? Either rescind that or show where I said it.

Yeah, you never answered my question about jamming guns either, so answer it.

[DMC]

Yeah, you never answered my question about jamming guns either, so answer it.

I am not required to answer your questions. I didn't make a false accusation against you. Clear your mistake and maybe I'll answer your questions.

[DMC]

Pavlov digging through my posts to try to find something remotely close to his strawman.

Can you be arrested for assault with a more deadly weapon?

[Pavlov]

I am not required to answer your questions. I didn't make a false accusation against you. Clear your mistake and maybe I'll answer your questions.

I'm not required to rescind any statement I make either. I was imprecise -- a guy with an AR-15 is deadlier at 500 yards than a guy with a shotgun, which pretty much destroys your "just as deadly" argument. Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify.

And I'll save us your pissiness and answer my question for you. A guy with a jammed gun is not as deadly as one with a functioning gun. I could see the possibility that Paddock had experienced some jamming when he was learning to use the bump fire stocks so he brought several to maintain deadliness.