Had a gun debate today after Obamas latest comment about gun control.

[ZigZagZeke]

And how wrong you are!

What if one or two people had been armed in the Aurora shooting?

Huh? What post were you reading?

 

[Vantage]

I do not have the confidence in the average shooter that you folks seem to. I have seen a SWAT officer have a ND at a 3 gun match, a guy point his gun down line at the range when he had a missfire and pull the trigger, and guy continue to shoot when a teen walked forward beyond the firing line to add another staple to his target when the range was hot. No I do not have a lot of confidence with people drawing their firearms in a very stressful situation. There seems to be difficulties when it is not a stressful situation. Obviously some here think otherwise. That is fine. I have my opinion and I shared it. Bash it if you wish, but all you have is your opinion to back it up.

locobob ... it is dark, there is teargas in the air, smoke, gunpowder, people screaming and moving every which way, blood, there a number of people with guns drawn. Who are the good guys, and who are the bad ? Who are people going to shoot at ? Of course they are not scared, because they visit gun friendly boards and have a CHL. hmmmm I'll pass.

Well I am aware that once in a while people will have accidents or do stupid things but... those are the statistical outliers not the norms. If you live your life based on fear of outliers then you're not going to have much of a life.
I agree with you that the recent theater shooting would have been a difficult scenario for a CHL holder... but I also think most CHL holders are not going to randomly blaze away if confused or unsure. I'm thinking most would instinctively seek cover then draw and probably not fire a shot unless they had a pretty good idea who the target was. It's hard to say what might have happened, I wasn't there and I'm guessing neither were you.

In both answers you both assume a CHL holder would be in the middle of the chaos. What if there a CHL holder in the immediate area of the door? Sure he's armed to the teeth, and wearing armor, but he can only fire in one direction at a time. And a shot put to armor is still enough to deliver a severe impact.

You know what, forget the guns. Why didn't someone try and tackle this guy?

 

[Pogue_Mahone]

Would that be American Soldiers? Considering the AK is not a US issued weapon.... But we will not go there. Best advice? Avoid any and all debates with antis completely.

It's much like religion or politics. Some people are very happy with their beliefs, no matter where they came from, fact, fairy tale, or just plain ignorance. I personally prefer my beliefs to be grounded in logic, education, and reality. Still, its not necessarily bad to challenge others' beliefs in friendly manner. Perhaps something you say might stick.

You know what, forget the guns. Why didn't someone try and tackle this guy?

No doubt. When the Thurston shooting occurred I was a student at Springfield High. I remember details well. People tackled him. One guy took a bullet straight through his hand, another in the head, but numbers overwhelmed him. They were heroes. Were it not for their bravery he could have continued to shoot.
How about this. What if HALF THE THEATER WERE CHL HOLDERS? How would that change things? Think he would walk into that room guns blazing?

 

[ThemGunsThough]

Well said. I like that comparison to a car (i'm going to use that).

 

[mac9990]

Wow, strange attitude for someone on a gun forum...

I drove down the freeway today surrounded by thousands of people zipping around at 60+mph in 2 ton vehicles, amazingly I did not see a single crash. I was also at the gun club last week next to a bunch of people with auto-loading rifles, by some miracle no one was injured. By your logic there should have been mass carnage because the average American is not to be trusted with anything that is potentially dangerous. While we like to bubblegum about all the stupid people in the world the evidence would seem overwhelming that most people can in fact be trusted to behave responsibly most of the time. So why would you assume that a CHL holder would start wildly spraying bullets in a crowded movie theater?

Agree. If I was there I would have welcomed any CHL holders to return fire. He was NOT an experienced shooter. He gave up meekly to the police. A few bullets aimed his way would have either hit him or made him stop and run. It's kind of odd to see anti CC in a firearms forum, but it seems most have a few.

 

[Hook686]

Yup ... a 74 year old CHL holder, with tear gas in his eyes, hears the gun shots and screaming. He looks across the isle in the darken theatre and sees a twenties-something kid with a raised pistol firing. He cannot see the target of the shooter because of the gas, darkness and crowd. He decides to be the hero and take out the kid with the gun. hmmmm you don't think this is a likely scenario eh ?

 

[Bigfoot]

Wow, you presented a worse case scenario. Why?

Ok I'll play.

What if he's a 24 year old veteran who's been trained to function while being gassed? Would it be ok if he defended his family?

You don't think it's a good idea for citizens to own a "weapon with auto-load capability"

You don't think it's a good idea for civilians to defend themselves against a mass murderer.

Gotta ask. Hook, you own guns. Why?

 

[CasualShooter]

Yesterday the president made a comment that left me uncomfortable and gave a glimpse of the future that is very bad! The presidents remark was blah,blah,blah, I feel an AK-47 belongs in the hands of a soldier,not civilian, blah,blah,blah........Wait....WHAT?!?

"I believe an AK-47 belongs in the hands of a soldier,not civilians"

Maybe we saw different speeches, but accuracy is important. Obama said, "I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that an AK-47 belongs in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities." Underlining added for emphasis.

Perhaps it was an accident, but changing the text of a quote is generally regared as dishonest at worst and poor form at best.

 

[Hook686]

Bigfoot wrote:

Wow, you presented a worse case scenario. Why?

Ok I'll play.

What if he's a 24 year old veteran who's been trained to function while being gassed? Would it be ok if he defended his family?

You don't think it's a good idea for citizens to own a "weapon with auto-load capability"

You don't think it's a good idea for civilians to defend themselves against a mass murderer.

Gotta ask. Hook, you own guns. Why?

Me Too: WOW !

Simple ... I practice for worst case scenarios. I reckon you hope for the best and come out shooting. If the shooter is close enough to be an immediate threat(he is close enough to grab his belt buckle) I reckon anything goes and shooting the guy to take focus off the family gives them an opportunity to escape death. On the other hand, it draws attention right to you and your family. You really think your little pea shooter is going to cause a significant effect to win the day ? As I recall some guy came running down from his apartment with his .45acp to save the day and ended up dead as the bad guy had armor and an AK-47. Had his family been with him I suspect they too would be dead.

I think it more prudent to focus on getting the family and self out of harms way (unless the bad guy is at belt buckle distance) than in taking on an armored shooter with a rifle and shotgun.

You sure seem to like to formulate judgements about what I think. Perhaps you might evaluate your thoughts a little more closely.

Yes I own guns. Why ? Why not ? I even have some auto loaders. I like the Remington 1100 over the 870, the M1 Carbine over the AR-15, and the S&W 329PD over the .45acp. Different strokes for different folks. In my military service I trained with the M1 Carbine, so maybe I'm not the young hot dog you come across to me as. Young bucks seem to be the same, generation after generation.

Enjoy your illusions.

 

[Bigfoot]

You own auto loading weapons. OK.

No, I hadn't formed a judgement about you, that's why I asked questions.

I have now. I'm being trolled.

Have a good weekend.

 

[Grunwald]

Bigfoot wrote:





Me Too: WOW !

Simple ... I practice for worst case scenarios. I reckon you hope for the best and come out shooting. If the shooter is close enough to be an immediate threat(he is close enough to grab his belt buckle) I reckon anything goes and shooting the guy to take focus off the family gives them an opportunity to escape death. On the other hand, it draws attention right to you and your family. You really think your little pea shooter is going to cause a significant effect to win the day ? As I recall some guy came running down from his apartment with his .45acp to save the day and ended up dead as the bad guy had armor and an AK-47. Had his family been with him I suspect they too would be dead.

I think it more prudent to focus on getting the family and self out of harms way (unless the bad guy is at belt buckle distance) than in taking on an armored shooter with a rifle and shotgun.

You sure seem to like to formulate judgements about what I think. Perhaps you might evaluate your thoughts a little more closely.

Yes I own guns. Why ? Why not ? I even have some auto loaders. I like the Remington 1100 over the 870, the M1 Carbine over the AR-15, and the S&W 329PD over the .45acp. Different strokes for different folks. In my military service I trained with the M1 Carbine, so maybe I'm not the young hot dog you come across to me as. Young bucks seem to be the same, generation after generation.

Enjoy your illusions.

Enjoy your life in The People's Republic of Kalifornia. It already has the kinds of gun ownership restriction that you seem to suppport. Please do not move north.

 

[Stomper]

And if you do move up here.... Please, NEVER register to vote.

(I'm an 8yr. Infantry vet with scars... and I will use my "illusion", thanks)

 

[BillyDa59]

I disagree. Ask them questions and let them admit themselves that they have no clue as to what they are talking about. The point that hunting rifles are a lot more powerful and accurate is a good way to lead the conversation. Ask if they know what calibers these 'assult' rifles use and then ask if they know what calibers are most used in hunting rifles. Don't just tell them, ask them. If you tell them then they will not have the opportunity to say the do not know.

I believe what you described is known as the Socratic method and works very well if it's started off in a non-adversarial manner.

 

[Russianfist]

Maybe we saw different speeches, but accuracy is important. Obama said, "I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that an AK-47 belongs in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities." Underlining added for emphasis.

Perhaps it was an accident, but changing the text of a quote is generally regared as dishonest at worst and poor form at best.

Well, I did post the quote as I heard it and while your qoute is different from the quote that I posted my interpretation may not be incorrect. We all know that leaders of the world have large staffs of people writting speechs for them to sway the opinion of their voters. Carefully crafting these words they often times have a hidden or double meaning.with his remarkes it is clear as a bell that he is saying that "criminals" are NOT getting AK-47s from the military so ot leads the listener to make the assumption that the weapons are coming from the public. In making this comment he is planting a seed in the minds of average America that assault weapons are ONLY coming from gun stores,guns shows or stolen from people who shouldnt have them in the first place.Thus, we are left with the image in our minds that only paranoid gun fanatics would own such a terrible thing. You sometimws need to read between the lines to grasp the full content of the messages of what is presented to you.

 

[Russianfist]

I would also like to address a couple of comments that were off topic in this thread that Ive seen. First I wrote in my OP that if you are gay that is your choice. Someone seemed to take slight offence to this but perhaps I need to clarify my point. I believe that some people are BORN gay and some choose it as a lifestyle and all I really was saying was a persons sexuality isnt any of my business and I really dont care about what you do in your private life as it has no bearing on mine nor does it make you any less of a human being. I hope that clears things up?

Secondly, I see alot of talk about if someone had a CCW in the Colorado shooting things maybe different. Not likely and here is why. Not only as it has been pointed out that the theatre was full of panicking people in the dark fleeing in all directions but nobody has pointed out as far as I can tell that the shooter was covered in balistic armor. So, even if you could get shoots off your kill zone was reduced to about a 9 inch square window on his face. Anywhere else would most likely done little effect unless you had something strong enough to punch a hole in a vest. As far as I know only a couple hand guns will do that and those dont conceal very well.

 

[deen_ad]

Huh? What post were you reading?

The one that was quoted in my post that you made about not trusting anyone near you with a weapon.

 

[Russianfist]

Well said. I like that comparison to a car (i'm going to use that).

Fell free to use that comparison and encourage others to use it as well. We need to have people open their eyes to some of things around them to get them to understand it all. Another point I would like to make is when you read the 2nd amendment it it is ment in such a way that "a well armed militia"and the "people" are two seperate entities. Meaning that the peoples right to bare arms to keep the militias in check! Now,we will never have rocket launchers or cruise missles or a satellite system that can count how many blades of grass you have in your back yard FROM SPACE but we do still have a few little things that will make the government think twice before kicking in the door. Do we really want to give up that little bit of insurance? Thomas Jefferson wrote "one loves to possess arms,though they hope never to have occasion for them". I tend to fully agree with this statement.

Also, a perfect one and a half minute video by Penn&Teller describing the 2ndthe amendment YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

 

[BillyDa59]

Secondly, I see alot of talk about if someone had a CCW in the Colorado shooting things maybe different. Not likely and here is why. Not only as it has been pointed out that the theatre was full of panicking people in the dark fleeing in all directions but nobody has pointed out as far as I can tell that the shooter was covered in balistic armor. So, even if you could get shoots off your kill zone was reduced to about a 9 inch square window on his face. Anywhere else would most likely done little effect unless you had something strong enough to punch a hole in a vest. As far as I know only a couple hand guns will do that and those dont conceal very well.

I'd be willing to bet that his "body armor" was probably more like the flak vests you see in milsurp stores. I doubt it was anything as impressive as a person assumes it to be when the news says "body armor". I haven't seen any specifics on the body armor he bought other than it was supposedly purchased off ebay.

I'd be willing to be even in a good, hardy piece of top-notch body armor a bullet impact would still feel like one hell of a punch. If nothing else, the kid would be pretty quickly unnerved when bullets started flying his way. Just that unnerving would be enough of a distraction to reduce casualties.

 

[JimmyS1985]

I left the forum for a couple weeks after Obama made that comment. I knew I couldn't come up with any plausible defense for what Obama said, he should be glad that Im not a single issue voter, because if I weren't he would have a hard time getting my vote.

The man who carried out the shooting wasn't a criminal, outside of arresting him for having the capability to carry out a mass shooting (which is not against the law since technically any gun owner with x amount of ammunition is capable of something like that), there are no laws in place to prevent. When the media was going on about how the man had accumulated 3000 rounds of .223 ammunition, to me that really isn't a whole lot, and there shouldn't be any limitation on ammunition carried.

There are certain laws I hate with a passion. They are what I call pre-crime laws, they are IMO Big Government run amok and give police officers too much power to carry out an arrest for a set of factors that could lead to a serious crime but 999x out of a 1000 never does. The way a pre-crime law works is "Well you COULD have done this, so we're going to throw you in jail just because you had the capability to cause a crime with x factors in place." Our DWI laws when no property is damaged and no one is hurt, are essentially pre-crime laws. A pre-crime law would be like arresting a gun owner leaving the shooting range for leaving bullets in his magazine because HE COULD have caused an accidental discharge by leaving bullets in the magazine, etc. etc. I think these laws need to be gotten rid of off the books, and only when something actually bad happens, should that then be a crime, not having a set of factors such as a gun owner accumulating a decent amount of ammunition stock, become a crime in and of itself even without mal intent to harm or injure anyone.

There are about 20 mass shootings a year in this country, that number has remained steady through the decades with and without gun control laws in place, including the 1994 AWB.

Outside of banning Semi-Automatic sporting rifles, in essence, taking guns away from people, there is nothing that could of been done to prevent the shooting in Colorado.

Any politician that wants to ban some of my favorite weapons such as the AR15 or AK47 as well as the reasonable magazine capacity associated with those weapons, needs to look at that quote by one of our founding fathers (I forget who at the time, I think it was Ben Franklin).

"He who sacrifices freedom for security, deserves neither."

Our streets aren't running red with blood, and guns are like a baby' toy in how many deaths per year it causes compared to Alcohol, cars and cigarettes. Thankfully I doubt any new legislation will get passed that would ban some of my favorite weapons like the FiveseveN, the AK47 or the AR15 and this will subside.

 

[SIG383]

One of my biggest reasons why an assault weapons ban would royally suck, is that I am active duty military, and our current weapons training SUCKS. We get quality training, but to save tax payer money, we don't get a lot of trigger time. For this reason, I enjoy having my personal AR-15s to train with. I also have an AK-47 for the same reason. To some, this makes perfect sense, but to others, I couldn't beat it in to their thick skulls with the buttstock of said rifles...