Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:Worked ok for VC. Seems to be doing well enough to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but I don't really see the average American citizen throwing his life away like that, taping bombs to their children and launching suicide attacks against the evil communist invaders.

You're too spoiled. Europeans are, too. That's the downside of our way of life, and to deny this just reeks of neglecting realism imo.

Frazzled wrote:Worked ok for VC. Seems to be doing well enough to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The VC was a politically motivated army of regular and irregular and civillian troops. The Taliban (and a number of other such groups) are the same.

So, what point were you making again?

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Worked ok for VC. Seems to be doing well enough to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The VC was a politically motivated army of regular and irregular and civillian troops. The Taliban (and a number of other such groups) are the same.

So, what point were you making again?

Guys with guns can change the world even against a superpower.

Organised, well trained and well motivated guys with extensive supply and funding, sure.

Billy Bob and the guys, not so much. If America were overthrown tomorrow with all government forces etc gone, there would be no overallcommand and control, no real communication structure, no supply and logistics, ect etc...the ability of even reasonably well prepared groups (survivalists etc) to resist and regain control in any coordinated or meaningful way against any invading/oppressive government force would be minimal.

Thats ok. Its our country. If we think we need guns to protect against tyranny, or to reform after wienerdoggedon, its fine.

Frazzled wrote:

filbert wrote:I know it sounds horribly un-Christian to say or think it (just as well I'm not a Christian then really) but one can't but help read some of the comments expressed here within from the pro-gun lobby and help but feel the USA really reaps what it sows in some respects. You want the freedom to bear arms? Fine, but don't be shocked at the increased level of gun related thefts, deaths, shootings and massacres.

I'm ok with it. Put the criminals in jail but don't infringe my rights because of them. Our level is violent crime is actually ok compared to the UK. There's been no positive correlation in the US between increased restrictions and reduced crime. Indeed in the states wherein CHL laws have been implemented violent crimes have gone down. Cities with high regulation: Washington, NY, LA, CHicago, have extreme levels of violence, whereas us slack jawed yokels who cling to our guns and our religion seem to live in better environments. New Orleans is the exception but its its own creature incomparible to well anything.

It seems to me that the level of gun crime in highly regulated areas would be higher than other areas. Why? Because most law-abiding citizens don't have guns (because they don't want or need one enough to circumvent the law to get one), but those who are prone to commit crimes still have easy access to guns if they can be bothered driving for half an hour to get one.

In Australia after our big gun massacre in 1996, guns were actively retrieved and confiscated (people being reimbursed of course), such that no one had guns anymore. This would be completely infeasible in the US for so many reasons, but it seems to have worked quite well. Its not comparable to prohibition on alcohol, for one because it's fairly difficult for individuals to make automatic rifles (or anything beyond single-shots) in their basement.

I'll quote from above what I think is a pertinent point:

SilverMK2 wrote:The US has an insane number of gun related problems every year; is there anything that would help lower those figures? Yes or no.

Of the things that may lower those figures (say, introducing some kind of minumum firearms training before you can purchase, being required to own a suitable gun/ammo safe etc before purchase as a couple of already mentioned examples), what would you be happy to go along with, if any?

Or are you happy enough with essentially an almost completely unregulated gun culture and one of the highest gun related incident figures in the civilised (and indeed in the uncivilised) world?

Trasvi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

filbert wrote:I know it sounds horribly un-Christian to say or think it (just as well I'm not a Christian then really) but one can't but help read some of the comments expressed here within from the pro-gun lobby and help but feel the USA really reaps what it sows in some respects. You want the freedom to bear arms? Fine, but don't be shocked at the increased level of gun related thefts, deaths, shootings and massacres.

I'm ok with it. Put the criminals in jail but don't infringe my rights because of them. Our level is violent crime is actually ok compared to the UK. There's been no positive correlation in the US between increased restrictions and reduced crime. Indeed in the states wherein CHL laws have been implemented violent crimes have gone down. Cities with high regulation: Washington, NY, LA, CHicago, have extreme levels of violence, whereas us slack jawed yokels who cling to our guns and our religion seem to live in better environments. New Orleans is the exception but its its own creature incomparible to well anything.

It seems to me that the level of gun crime in highly regulated areas would be higher than other areas. Why? Because most law-abiding citizens don't have guns (because they don't want or need one enough to circumvent the law to get one), but those who are prone to commit crimes still have easy access to guns if they can be bothered driving for half an hour to get one.

In Australia after our big gun massacre in 1996, guns were actively retrieved and confiscated (people being reimbursed of course), such that no one had guns anymore. This would be completely infeasible in the US for so many reasons, but it seems to have worked quite well. Its not comparable to prohibition on alcohol, for one because it's fairly difficult for individuals to make automatic rifles (or anything beyond single-shots) in their basement.

I'll quote from above what I think is a pertinent point:

SilverMK2 wrote:The US has an insane number of gun related problems every year; is there anything that would help lower those figures? Yes or no.

Of the things that may lower those figures (say, introducing some kind of minumum firearms training before you can purchase, being required to own a suitable gun/ammo safe etc before purchase as a couple of already mentioned examples), what would you be happy to go along with, if any?

Or are you happy enough with essentially an almost completely unregulated gun culture and one of the highest gun related incident figures in the civilised (and indeed in the uncivilised) world?

Actually the comparison is excellent. Good hooch came over the border, spurring illegal crime. Make weapons illegal and they'll come from over the border as well.
But of course thats not going to happen. Politicians beware.

Frazzled wrote:Thats ok. Its our country. If we think we need guns to protect against tyranny, or to reform after wienerdoggedon, its fine.

That's true. It is a democracy, after all, so if the majority prefers the illusion of protection to less dead people, than that is quite simply their choice.

It's difficult for "us" to understand (much like with the healthcare debate) and I'll continue to feel bad for the many innocent victims to this policy, but in the end, even if "we" maintain that it would be better for everyone, this still is a conclusion that the people have to arrive at by themselves. Even if the government were trying to enforce this, it would only end in political suicide for whoever was responsible (and said decree being invalidated again after 4 years at the latest), as in the current political climate it would be a major topic to be exploited by the opponent.

Frazzled wrote:Actually the comparison is excellent. Good hooch came over the border, spurring illegal crime. Make weapons illegal and they'll come from over the border as well.

Doesn't seem to work that way for Europe. At least in the scale as I assume you are insinuating, which is citizen Joe Random (which includes the majority of criminals) knowing where to get black market goods, and being willing to spend both time and money for getting loaded.

You can get a gun in any nation on the globe. It's just harder in some than in others, and apparently people stop bothering at some point.

It would take an amendment to the constitution. That is an entirely different matter to the creation of a regular kind of law.

Kilkrazy wrote:It would take an amendment to the constitution. That is an entirely different matter to the creation of a regular kind of law.

That too. Good point.
I suppose the government wouldn't even be able to make the change in the first place then, not without massive support from both parties as well as the public.

No they'll put a bunch of tree huggers on SCOTUS and it will reinterpret the Constitution

Spacemanvic wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

MrDwhitey wrote:Indeed, full gun registration caused WW2.

No, it allowed a dictator to take over. Thugs hate when someone fights back. Then he went ahead and started WW2. It's amazing what the idiot masses allow to happen to themselves under the guise of "protection" (Patriot Act for one). Its equally puzzling to expect the police to be there when you really need them.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Hitler was voted into power and then, following the Reichstag fire, was granted emergency powers to remove the "communist insurgent threat".

He did not use force to take over, he was granted absolute power by the people.

Go back to school, and this time READ a history book or two.

Hitler's Brown Shirts were the thugs he used to get his way.

Actually he has a point...
He may have used physical threats, intimidation and violence but ultimately he was voted into his position by the representatives of the german people...

purplefood wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

MrDwhitey wrote:Indeed, full gun registration caused WW2.

No, it allowed a dictator to take over. Thugs hate when someone fights back. Then he went ahead and started WW2. It's amazing what the idiot masses allow to happen to themselves under the guise of "protection" (Patriot Act for one). Its equally puzzling to expect the police to be there when you really need them.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Hitler was voted into power and then, following the Reichstag fire, was granted emergency powers to remove the "communist insurgent threat".

He did not use force to take over, he was granted absolute power by the people.

Go back to school, and this time READ a history book or two.

Hitler's Brown Shirts were the thugs he used to get his way.

Actually he has a point...
He may have used physical threats, intimidation and violence but ultimately he was voted into his position by the representatives of the german people...

True, but they voted under the threat of violence.

To vote for someone else would only invite violence on themselves. Not to mention the German people weren't exactly thinking straight. They were disillusioned after WW1 and Hitler told them what they wanted to hear.

Frazzled wrote:

MrMerlin wrote:

SOFDC wrote:

Because accidents happen when some negligent twit leaves his weapon lying around!!

Note the bold part. A gun exploding because of a bad heat treat is an accident. A gun firing because you flipped the selector from "SAFE" to "FIRE" is an accident.

Playing cowboy with the mirror and winding up putting a round through something and claiming "It just went off while I was cleaning it!" is not.
Playing a joke on someone while hunting that ends with "Aw it ain't loaded, see?" *Yanks trigger* is not an accident.
Leaving a firearm out of your immediate control and unsecured where idiots/children/baddies can get at it? That's not an accident, that's an idiot.

Well, then call it stupidity! But still, lots of stupid and irrresponsible people (or their children!) die every day because government thinks its a great idea to allow them to own as many guns as they like. One can clearly see that with stricter control, less people would get shot. I have no problem with responsible and sane people carrying weapons, but someone should really make it harder for every hillibilly to get a gun! You should have to prove that you can handle a weapon responsibly before they give you one!

There's your fundamental flaw. Its not that the government thinks anything. The government would prefer we didn't have them. Its that the Right of US citizens to have firearms SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED by the government.

Government is not the font of rights. Those rights are inalienable. Government tries to take those rights and must be restricted so that those freedoms may be passed from generation to generation.

You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to disco. You have the right to wear white in October. You have the right to have a cat, even though cats are wrong. You have the right to eat a one lb burger and follow it with a 30 oz. tub of Dr. Pepper with a whisky chaser. You have the right to cry havoc and let slip the wienerdogs of war...

You know why? Because you're in America Hurr! (or maybe Canada)

afaik the rights can be changed if 66% of the senators agree... or something like that
also, (reading your later comments), no-one said YOU are irresponsible, but many others are. Since noon here in germany, about eight people have been shot in the US.... but no, that's not because you have too weak coltrol laws, but because of them evil mean gangsters that buy their guns illegally anyway, right?
I'm not saying you guys should ban guns, but at least make it harder to buy them? (you'll still have your second amendment then!) Maybe test the to-be owners and make sure their responsible enough not to leave the guns lying around the house.
All I'm saying is:
Plenty of people get shot every day, don't you want to do anything about it?
Judging by your replies to every pro-gun control comment, it seems you dont care, and all is well as long as YOU get to shoot your guns, because its fun. And YOU are responsibe enough anyway, so there's need to change any laws....

MrMerlin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

MrMerlin wrote:

SOFDC wrote:

Because accidents happen when some negligent twit leaves his weapon lying around!!

Note the bold part. A gun exploding because of a bad heat treat is an accident. A gun firing because you flipped the selector from "SAFE" to "FIRE" is an accident.

Playing cowboy with the mirror and winding up putting a round through something and claiming "It just went off while I was cleaning it!" is not.
Playing a joke on someone while hunting that ends with "Aw it ain't loaded, see?" *Yanks trigger* is not an accident.
Leaving a firearm out of your immediate control and unsecured where idiots/children/baddies can get at it? That's not an accident, that's an idiot.

Well, then call it stupidity! But still, lots of stupid and irrresponsible people (or their children!) die every day because government thinks its a great idea to allow them to own as many guns as they like. One can clearly see that with stricter control, less people would get shot. I have no problem with responsible and sane people carrying weapons, but someone should really make it harder for every hillibilly to get a gun! You should have to prove that you can handle a weapon responsibly before they give you one!

There's your fundamental flaw. Its not that the government thinks anything. The government would prefer we didn't have them. Its that the Right of US citizens to have firearms SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED by the government.

Government is not the font of rights. Those rights are inalienable. Government tries to take those rights and must be restricted so that those freedoms may be passed from generation to generation.

You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to disco. You have the right to wear white in October. You have the right to have a cat, even though cats are wrong. You have the right to eat a one lb burger and follow it with a 30 oz. tub of Dr. Pepper with a whisky chaser. You have the right to cry havoc and let slip the wienerdogs of war...

You know why? Because you're in America Hurr! (or maybe Canada)

afaik the rights can be changed if 66% of the senators agree... or something like that
also, (reading your later comments), no-one said YOU are irresponsible, but many others are. Since noon here in germany, about eight people have been shot in the US.... but no, that's not because you have too weak coltrol laws, but because of them evil mean gangsters that buy their guns illegally anyway, right?
I'm not saying you guys should ban guns, but at least make it harder to buy them? (you'll still have your second amendment then!) Maybe test the to-be owners and make sure their responsible enough not to leave the guns lying around the house.
All I'm saying is:
Plenty of people get shot every day, don't you want to do anything about it?
Judging by your replies to every pro-gun control comment, it seems you dont care, and all is well as long as YOU get to shoot your guns, because its fun. And YOU are responsibe enough anyway, so there's need to change any laws....

No, the only way to change the Constitution is to have a Constitutional Convention. Everyone votes on Consitutional amendments.

Or by a 2/3 majority vote of BOTH houses of Congress. Something thats nearly impossable. The previous method is actually easier.


As for people getting shot, the laws we have in place are sufficient. So 8 people got shot since noon. Its a big country. How does that compare to how many people are getting shot in areas of similer landmass and population.

Spacemanvic wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

MrDwhitey wrote:Indeed, full gun registration caused WW2.

No, it allowed a dictator to take over. Thugs hate when someone fights back. Then he went ahead and started WW2. It's amazing what the idiot masses allow to happen to themselves under the guise of "protection" (Patriot Act for one). Its equally puzzling to expect the police to be there when you really need them.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Hitler was voted into power and then, following the Reichstag fire, was granted emergency powers to remove the "communist insurgent threat".

He did not use force to take over, he was granted absolute power by the people.

Go back to school, and this time READ a history book or two.

Hitler's Brown Shirts were the thugs he used to get his way.

Cute. I did study History at school. That included Nazi Germany and Hitler's rise to power. Got an A in it.

Hitlers Brownshirts were a militia under the command of Captain Ernst Rohm, a World War 1 veteran. They took part in Hitler's first failed attempt to gain power through force, the Munich Putsch.

During the years between this and Hitler's victory in the 1933 election the SA grew to have thousands of members and was used as Hitler's personal bodyguard and as saboteurs of the meetings of rival parties such as the Communist party and the Social Democrats, as well as a defence against sabotage of Nazi meetings from these parties. In the run up to the elections Hitler ordered the SA to cease violent action so as not to alienate potential voters and the SA effectively became banner wavers and a spectacle to add glamour to the party.

Upon reaching power by election, which he did by securing votes using his legendary charisma and oratory skills, he disbanded the SA as a military force, with all of its usual tasks such as Hitler's personal protection and rooting out disloyalty in the party falling to the newly formed SS. Rohm and other leading members of the SA who were angry at being removed from positions of power were executed in what became the Night of the Long Knives. This removed a potential threat to Hitler's own power and improved relations with the official German Army. Hitler sacrificed a militia of 3 million men for the actual army which numbered 100,000.

Grey Templar wrote:

purplefood wrote:He may have used physical threats, intimidation and violence but ultimately he was voted into his position by the representatives of the german people...

True, but they voted under the threat of violence. To vote for someone else would only invite violence on themselves.

Nonsense. People just got caught up believing the gak Hitler was spouting, because they were - as you then correctly pointed out - disillusioned with the existing government. And it is always so much easier to point a finger at some minority to shift all blame regarding the economic situation away from one's own people. *cough cough*

Germans didn't vote "under a threat of violence". For one, the votes were still secret. Secondly, as can be seen in the rapidly rising support of Hitler's party, they didn't need to be threatened, they were perfectly willing to integrate themselves into the system because at the time they simply believed in it.

This can happen anywhere and is founded in mankind's tendency to form groups to combine their strength, yet yearning for leadership by an "alpha" exhibiting desirable traits.
Are you familiar with this experiment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave

Any suggestion that it was all Hitler's fault and that the Germans were somehow "forced" to put him into power is just apologist-revisionist propaganda.

[edit] Considering that the "Wave" experiment happened in the USA ... wouldn't it be scary if a group thusly indoctrinated would have ready access to firearms? Oh, wait.

You know...we wouldn't have need of the 2nd amendment if the crown hadn't taxed us. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!
Yet we do have the 2nd amendment and a self imposed IRS................


Troop "OMG Sarge the insurrectionist set fire to the IRS building"
Officer "SARGEANT TAKE YOUR PLATOON AND SECURE THE AREA AROUND THE IRS BUILDING"
Me "You two do notice its the IRS building right? From here where we are at we can visualy see the area around the building is secured"

and I bombed this

I don't get it

I feel like that could have been really funny, but I'm not sure what the punch line could be.

We threw off the crown about taxation and formed our own nation with constitution which consist of the 2nd amendment

In turn a fictional joke where the 2nd amendment has allowed arm insurrection within the US who are burning down IRS Building (the IRS was self imposed) IRS collects taxes

Let's clear up a common myth here.

Hitler and the Nazis never got more than 1/3 of the vote. Through a combination of the night of the long knives, and the burning of the Reichstag, Hitler seized power. More people were voting for the SDP (social democrats) than Nazis. The communist vote was also significant.

Anyway, enough of the Nazis, back OT.

I mentioned earlier that gun control laws in America, were historically, motivated by a desire to stop African Americans and other minorities from having firearms. Back then it was right-wingers and conservatives behind this, whilst liberals opposed it. Now, we have the weird situation of the left and the liberals calling for gun control, and the forces of conservatism supporting the right to bear arms!!!
How the hell did that happen?? Politics.... :( I'm confused. Too much reading can do that

for one because it's fairly difficult for individuals to make automatic rifles (or anything beyond single-shots) in their basement.

There are people in certain (mostly crappy) parts of the world making machine guns without access to electricity or batteries. Do you really think that anyone with an ounce of drive to do so, with the resources a first world country has available, can't manage it? Seriously?

Or that some drug lord with 6 digits into his operation won't have a brain wave and drop another 10k or so on some old manufacturing equipment to start building weapons to send up along with the drugs?

It's a heck of a lot easier to make a simple SMG like a STEN or Uzi than it is a bolt action or pump action from a machining standpoint. That's kinda the whole point of the designs. Pretty much the only thing easier to make is "Tape dat tube to dat wood block" type firearms. It doesn't happen more because...well..for a variety of reasons people don't WANT to bother.

Billy Bob and the guys, not so much.

Happened at least once to my knowledge. Back in the 40s, a bunch of vets and company decided they didn't want to put up with a corrupt county government in tennesse anymore, and sieged out the sheriffs department. Insurrection does not always mean 80 million gun owners getting into a big open field with the full might of the US military on the other side and slugging it out rifle to aircraft carrier.

Spacemanvic wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats why we have something called a gun safe.

Again, I'm sure that responsible people do.

In the UK, people who have firearms have to have their places of storage (as well as ammo storage which I believe has to be seperate from the guns? Been a while since I looked) checked by the police to ensure they meet the requirements of the law - never heard anything like that in the US...

Wow, you have to have a law and be told what to do AND have someone follow up on you in order to do the sensible thing? Im beginning to understand your need for your gun laws. And GW's corporate structure.

Hahahaha!

And so do you. But you feel that would be an infringement of your rights, so you refuse to do it.

That's why so many people are accidentally shot and killed.

Rules are great, if everyone follows them. They don't. Not here, and certainly not there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Worked ok for VC. Seems to be doing well enough to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The VC was a politically motivated army of regular and irregular and civillian troops. The Taliban (and a number of other such groups) are the same.

So, what point were you making again?

Guys with guns can change the world even against a superpower.

No they can't.

An informed and sympathetic global community can keep 'super' powers under control.

Happened at least once to my knowledge. Back in the 40s, a bunch of vets and company decided they didn't want to put up with a corrupt county government in tennesse anymore, and sieged out the sheriffs department. Insurrection does not always mean 80 million gun owners getting into a big open field with the full might of the US military on the other side and slugging it out rifle to aircraft carrier.

ugh. If that happens today that be some serious clairification on orders to avoid the possibility of following a unlawful order. From the platoons on up.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Let's clear up a common myth here.
Hitler and the Nazis never got more than 1/3 of the vote. Through a combination of the night of the long knives, and the burning of the Reichstag, Hitler seized power. More people were voting for the SDP (social democrats) than Nazis. The communist vote was also significant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933

Frazzled wrote:No they'll put a bunch of tree huggers on SCOTUS and it will reinterpret the Constitution

To all the tree huggers I say:



Guns do not kill people. Irresponsible gun owners do.


P.S. Frazzled the pic is mostly for you.

DeathReaper wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No they'll put a bunch of tree huggers on SCOTUS and it will reinterpret the Constitution

To all the tree huggers I say:



Guns do not kill people. Irresponsible gun owners do.


P.S. Frazzled the pic is mostly for you.

Interesting point, but let me add this into the mix. I see there has been a huge increase in gun ownership in Colorado due to the killings. A knee jerk reaction to what happened at the cinema. What really scares me is that pototenrially in a cinema holding 200 people, 20 of those people could now be armed. Mr or Mrs lunatic turns up and starts blasting away... anyone see how this is going to turn out? Shall I put it in black & white for you?

Lunatic starts blasting away in a dark enclosed space, 20 untrained members of the general public responded. Weapons are drawn and a target is looked for. One of the twenty gun owners is fortunate enough to see a muzzle flash and targets the lunatic and responds, unfortunately another gun owner dosen't see the original muzzle flash, but sees the response of the other gun owner. The domino effect starts and chaos develops.

Odds are very much against that any of those 20 gun owners are SWAT trained or are Special Forces, even if there was one there, it would have no impact the chaos that is about to unfold. Owning a gun to protect your home or stop being mugged is one thing, allowing people to have a gun in such a place is madness.

Madness? This is AMURIKA!

Frazzled wrote:No they'll put a bunch of tree huggers on SCOTUS and it will reinterpret the Constitution

Is that possible? I thought SCOTUS held to the principle that earlier decisions are binding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:

Interesting point, but let me add this into the mix. I see there has been a huge increase in gun ownership in Colorado due to the killings. A knee jerk reaction to what happened at the cinema. What really scares me is that pototenrially in a cinema holding 200 people, 20 of those people could now be armed. Mr or Mrs lunatic turns up and starts blasting away... anyone see how this is going to turn out? Shall I put it in black & white for you?

...
...

I don't know for sure but I think that none of the great gun killing sprees has been ended by a concerned citizen shooting the perpetrator. Normally the gunman is shot by the police or shoots himself.

This attack is a rare one in which the shooter has been taken into custody. It offers the chance to find out something about his psychology, which might lead to some helpful insight into why people do these things.

I don't know for sure but I think that none of the great gun killing sprees has been ended by a concerned citizen shooting the perpetrator.

Why would they be? A bit hard for a concerned citizen to carry in a no-carry zone.


....But there's been at least one school shooting stopped by a school admin going out to his car, retrieving a pistol, and confronting the shooter. (Pearl, Mississippi.)
....And been at least one instance of a handgun carrying CHL holder engaging an armored and rifle armed bad guy along with the police. (Tyler, Texas.)

Granted, neither of these fits your criteria, because in the first, the culprit wasn't shot, and in the latter case the baddie was not stopped after being shot in the chest twice.

20 untrained members of the general public responded.

This is where your argument crashed and burned. To get a CHL in Colorado, and indeed almost every state that allows someone to carry a firearm concealed, you must have -some- form of training or verifiable experience in shooting (And that doesn't mean "I shoot wrecked cars in the rock quarry!".)

Odds are very much against that any of those 20 gun owners are SWAT trained or are Special Forces,

Perhaps, but odds are anyone that was serious enough to get a CHL in the first place has been trained by or next to a Mil/LEO type, to say nothing of any other shooting experience. While I don't want to say that taking a 1-day pistol class with a ranger just back from his third round in the middle east will prepare you to get dropped out of a C130 to raid some mountainside bunkers in afghanistan, we are talking about something just a little bit more intensive than "Heres da sights, now pull this curvy bit real gentle like."

One of the twenty gun owners is fortunate enough to see a muzzle flash and targets the lunatic and responds, unfortunately another gun owner dosen't see the original muzzle flash, but sees the response of the other gun owner. The domino effect starts and chaos develops.

Someone want to explain to me why I am firing at muzzle flashes when I know damn good and well (And so will anyone issued a CHL) that this behavior WILL result in a vibrant alternative sex life for decades on end and a 3x9 cage as a -best case- outcome? Better still, if my only way to detect my attacker is by his firing (Where is my weapon light? Where is the surefire I keep? Where is the giant freaking LED light on a cell phone I can activate at arms length for a moment if it comes to that last ditch effort?) why am I attempting to return fire in favor of getting the hell out of there? Either he can see me, and I can't see him...in which case I need to be gone before I am shot, or He can't see me, and I can't see Him...in which case, I need to be gone, and not giving him something concrete to shoot at.

Secondly, if I -CAN- detect the firer by something other than muzzle flash, I am sure my first instinct will be to shoot the man in street clothes with a handgun that IS NOT pointed in my general direction, rather than the freakishly bright red haired man who is screaming "I AM THE JOKER!" and wearing body armor, carrying a rifle, shotgun, AND handgun that ARE pointed in my general direction.

The scenario you present not only requires a complete lack of training or experience, but a total disregard for the subjects desire to both not be shot and not be jailed.