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.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
My side? When did I say "ban black rifles" or anything of the sort?

How did you forget that time you got elected King of the Liberals? You swore on a copy of the Communist Manifesto that you would defend every belief held by any member of the left, foreign or domestic, or may you be cursed to forever more drink only non-fair-trade coffee, forevermore

Oh gak, I didn't know! Should I be more, uh, stately or something?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Um, you do realize there is a difference between the Good Guys with Guns(Cops) and the hypothetical Good Guys with Guns(CC Owners) you were referencing, right?

There are plenty of differences, none of which impacts the accuracy of what I said in any way: This terrorist attack was stopped by armed "Good Guys." The how, when, and what if discussions are completely hypothetical, and not pertinent to my factual statement which you incorrectly said was false.

Sure, once he got past the armed cop at the door, he was eventually stopped by other armed cops later, which is totally what people mean when they say "a good guy with a gun stops...". Its not an expression that at all is typically used to endorse more concealed carry holders, said no one, ever, for feths sake, this forum.

I thought crappy cops who are minutes away when seconds count, and who have no responsibility to respond to your emergency whatsoever, are the reason we need good guys with guns. Now they are the good guys with guns?

Well, we need "Good Guys with Guns" to help the "Good Guys with Guns." Clearly, we just need more "Good Guys with Guns" everywhere checking to make sure there are enough "Good Guys with Guns" in the area to protect the innocent!

There is nothing wrong with having good guys with guns anywhere. They're good guys so they're not a threat and it makes no difference if they're armed or what they're carrying. Why would anyone be afraid of good people?

You trust every stranger with a gun?

Everyone that can lawfully own a gun, yes. What's the difference between them and me? To virtually everyone else in this state I'm a stranger with a gun and I'm a great guy. So are all my friends, relatives, neighbors and coworkers who are also gun owners. I'm not afraid of strangers, the vast majority of them are good people. Where do you live that you think strangers are out to get you?

America.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
America.

Your America seems to induce a lot more paranoia than mine does. Here's something you can try, don't think of those people as strangers instead consider them to just be friends you haven't met yet.

Black guns matter?

Sounds like a thing, I dunno?

xraytango wrote:
Black guns matter?

Sounds like a thing, I dunno?

It's not the color of your gun that matters, it's how you use it.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
My side? When did I say "ban black rifles" or anything of the sort?

I'm sorry, you claimed sincerity earlier. Is this a Schrodinger's Troll sort of thing? Sincere when called a troll, trolling when treated as though being sincere?

The requirements for relevant, on topic posting and to follow rule 1 aren't optional. Reel it in

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
America.

Your America seems to induce a lot more paranoia than mine does. Here's something you can try, don't think of those people as strangers instead consider them to just be friends you haven't met yet.

Alright, now let me get this straight. We have to be paranoid enough to think that we should have lots of people out there with guns to stop attacks, but not paranoid enough to worry about some of the "good people with guns" actually being bad people?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
America.

Your America seems to induce a lot more paranoia than mine does. Here's something you can try, don't think of those people as strangers instead consider them to just be friends you haven't met yet.

Alright, now let me get this straight. We have to be paranoid enough to think that we should have lots of people out there with guns to stop attacks, but not paranoid enough to worry about some of the "good people with guns" actually being bad people?

No you don't have to be paranoid or afraid of anything to own a gun. It's a right, you don't need a reason to exercise it. That's like saying you can only use your 1A right to free speech if you have something really important to say. If you are a law abiding US citizen you have the right to keep and bear arms, why you might choose to do so is irrelevant to the existence of the right. There are many reasons why law abiding citizens might want to own a gun, any one of them is valid because any reason is valid because you don't ever have to justify exercising a right to anyone.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
America.

Your America seems to induce a lot more paranoia than mine does. Here's something you can try, don't think of those people as strangers instead consider them to just be friends you haven't met yet.

Alright, now let me get this straight. We have to be paranoid enough to think that we should have lots of people out there with guns to stop attacks, but not paranoid enough to worry about some of the "good people with guns" actually being bad people?

No you don't have to be paranoid or afraid of anything to own a gun. It's a right, you don't need a reason to exercise it. That's like saying you can only use your 1A right to free speech if you have something really important to say. If you are a law abiding US citizen you have the right to keep and bear arms, why you might choose to do so is irrelevant to the existence of the right. There are many reasons why law abiding citizens might want to own a gun, any one of them is valid because any reason is valid because you don't ever have to justify exercising a right to anyone.

But this isn't talking about just owning a gun. This is talking about mass proliferation of concealed guns to protect against "bad guys (who presumably also have guns)". Which I think it incredibly paranoid. So I was saying that you calling him paranoid was incredibly hypocritcal. Thus, "[Paranoid] enough to think that we should have lots of people out there with guns to stop attacks, but not paranoid enough to worry about some of the 'good people with guns' actually being bad people[.]"

I certainly don't think that just owning a gun is paranoid. Although considering the amount of rednecks I know, my perception does corralate the two a bit .

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
This is talking about mass proliferation of concealed guns to protect against "bad guys (who presumably also have guns)".

Why, though? That's simply never going to be a thing. In states with lax or non-existent concealed carry regulations, it's a minority of people who own guns, and a minority of gun owners who concealed carry. Mass proliferation is never going to happen. Carrying should be an option for people who want to do it, but the overwhelming majority don't. I think that's more of a problem than some hypothetical sudden carrying craze if California got itself a concealed carry law (that's actually functional and not bs).

Seaward wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
My side? When did I say "ban black rifles" or anything of the sort?

I'm sorry, you claimed sincerity earlier. Is this a Schrodinger's Troll sort of thing? Sincere when called a troll, trolling when treated as though being sincere?

Um, you could not try to put words in my mouth. Never said to ban guns at all.

Just because I want more strict gun control and think gun free zones are a smart idea like say a dark nightclub where more weapons fire could cause much more damage, does not mean I want to ban all guns. That is just a silly.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
My side? When did I say "ban black rifles" or anything of the sort?

I'm sorry, you claimed sincerity earlier. Is this a Schrodinger's Troll sort of thing? Sincere when called a troll, trolling when treated as though being sincere?

Um, you could not try to put words in my mouth. Never said to ban guns at all.

Just because I want more strict gun control and think gun free zones are a smart idea like say a dark nightclub where more weapons fire could cause much more damage, does not mean I want to ban all guns. That is just a silly.

actually the Orlando night club was not a "dark" night club evident by pictures taken there before the attacks and such, it looked decently lit, in fact some nightclubs are going the lit route to prevent issues and such which occur in darkened nightclubs.

so yes anyone reasonably knowledgeable with a firearm could have taken out the shooter probably before he fired a handful of shots.

You know, you might just be right. Random CC person might just be a good enough marksmen to fire in to a crowd and take down his target before accidentally wounding or killing another person. That seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Lets take that risk.

Just curious, how many of our Military/LEO guys on here would have been willing to take the shot in the night club? How many would feel comfortable with a civilian taking the shot?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You know, you might just be right. Random CC person might just be a good enough marksmen to fire in to a crowd and take down his target before accidentally wounding or killing another person. That seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Lets take that risk.

well considering once the shooter started shooting odds are most people dropped to the ground while others spread away from him so yes a clear target would have been present.

Asterios wrote:
actually the Orlando night club was not a "dark" night club evident by pictures taken there before the attacks and such, it looked decently lit, in fact some nightclubs are going the lit route to prevent issues and such which occur in darkened nightclubs.

so yes anyone reasonably knowledgeable with a firearm could have taken out the shooter probably before he fired a handful of shots.

Except someone (a uniformed police officer) did try to take him out and failed at which point he took hostages. Also, multiple survivors described the scene being mass confusion due the combination of loud music and darkness.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Asterios wrote:
actually the Orlando night club was not a "dark" night club evident by pictures taken there before the attacks and such, it looked decently lit, in fact some nightclubs are going the lit route to prevent issues and such which occur in darkened nightclubs.

so yes anyone reasonably knowledgeable with a firearm could have taken out the shooter probably before he fired a handful of shots.

Except someone (a uniformed police officer) did try to take him out and failed at which point he took hostages. Also, multiple survivors described the scene being mass confusion due the combination of loud music and darkness.

the officer tried to take him out, outside of the nightclub, after that he went back in. most of the reports I heard were about him shooting the people on the ground and making sure they were dead.

Asterios wrote:
the officer tried to take him out, outside of the nightclub, after that he went back in.

He started shooting outside of the club where he was engaged by a uniformed police officer. He failed to stop him, at which point the shooter entered the club and began firing at the patrons. The officer that initially engaged him entered the club with more officers, at which point he retreated to the rear of the club and took hostages.


So no, it isn't that easy for someone, even with "reasonable knowledge" of a firearm, to stop something like what occurred in Orlando. This tough guy hero fantasy really needs to stop.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Asterios wrote:
the officer tried to take him out, outside of the nightclub, after that he went back in.

He started shooting outside of the club where he was engaged by a uniformed police officer. He failed to stop him, at which point the shooter entered the club and began firing at the patrons. The officer that initially engaged him entered the club with more officers, at which point he retreated to the rear of the club and took hostages.


So no, it isn't that easy for someone, even with "reasonable knowledge" of a firearm, to stop something like what occurred in Orlando. This tough guy hero fantasy really needs to stop.

curious where this is at, since the reports have no record of an officer trying to stop the gunman. in fact the police waited 3 hours before trying to take him out while they tried to negotiate with him. so i'm curious where this officer came from, there is mention of an officer being shot and his Kevlar helmet saving him, but nothing about an officer stopping or trying to stop him before the shooting.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Just curious, how many of our Military/LEO guys on here would have been willing to take the shot in the night club? How many would feel comfortable with a civilian taking the shot?

I'd be fine with it, but then, I'm aware of just how basic and/or gakky firearm training (especially pistol training) is in the military and law enforcement, so "LOL only law enforcement!"-type appeals don't really work for me. NYPD had a 4.8% intended target hit rate in 2013. 95.2% of the shots they fired that year either missed what they were aiming at or hit something (or someone) they weren't aiming at. In fact, with 4.2% of their shots hitting bystanders, it was only slightly more dangerous to be the target of the NYPD in 2013 than a bystander.

The overwhelming majority of cops do not have the training or practice to be any good with a pistol in situations like what was presented in Orlando. Neither do the overwhelming majority of military personnel.

Asterios wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Asterios wrote:
the officer tried to take him out, outside of the nightclub, after that he went back in.

He started shooting outside of the club where he was engaged by a uniformed police officer. He failed to stop him, at which point the shooter entered the club and began firing at the patrons. The officer that initially engaged him entered the club with more officers, at which point he retreated to the rear of the club and took hostages.


So no, it isn't that easy for someone, even with "reasonable knowledge" of a firearm, to stop something like what occurred in Orlando. This tough guy hero fantasy really needs to stop.

curious where this is at, since the reports have no record of an officer trying to stop the gunman. in fact the police waited 3 hours before trying to take him out while they tried to negotiate with him. so i'm curious where this officer came from, there is mention of an officer being shot and his Kevlar helmet saving him, but nothing about an officer stopping or trying to stop him before the shooting.

He linked it to you once. He was engaged by an off duty officer at the entrance of the club.

Here is the link for you again: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/12/us/what-happened-at-the-orlando-nightclub-shooting.html?_r=1

Seaward wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Just curious, how many of our Military/LEO guys on here would have been willing to take the shot in the night club? How many would feel comfortable with a civilian taking the shot?

I'd be fine with it, but then, I'm aware of just how basic and/or gakky firearm training (especially pistol training) is in the military and law enforcement, so "LOL only law enforcement!"-type appeals don't really work for me. NYPD had a 4.8% intended target hit rate in 2013. 95.2% of the shots they fired that year either missed what they were aiming at or hit something (or someone) they weren't aiming at. In fact, with 4.2% of their shots hitting bystanders, it was only slightly more dangerous to be the target of the NYPD in 2013 than a bystander.

The overwhelming majority of cops do not have the training or practice to be any good with a pistol in situations like what was presented in Orlando. Neither do the overwhelming majority of military personnel.

Exactly. Firearm training is pretty awful. I am assuming that it only gets better with civilians in very rare cases. Your normal CC person is not going to be a crackshot capable of taking down a person in this type of scenario. I would say it would be even harder, especially in this scenario, given the tension and environment. The vast majority of CC permit holders are not going to be ready or prepared for a high stress situation where there is little visibility and loud music. Assuming they can and would be able to handle this without causing far more issues is baffling to me.

Asterios wrote:
curious where this is at, since the reports have no record of an officer trying to stop the gunman. in fact the police waited 3 hours before trying to take him out while they tried to negotiate with him. so i'm curious where this officer came from, there is mention of an officer being shot and his Kevlar helmet saving him, but nothing about an officer stopping or trying to stop him before the shooting.

You could try the story I linked a couple of posts ago or any other story that explains what happened, since they all mention it:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-shooting-timeline/
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-pulse-shooting-tick-tock-20160613-story.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-pulse-nightclub-omar-mateen-timeline/
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/12/us/what-happened-at-the-orlando-nightclub-shooting.html
http://graphics.wsj.com/orlando-shooting/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/06/12/three-horrific-hours-orlando-nightclub-massacre/85788574/

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Exactly. Firearm training is pretty awful. I am assuming that it only gets better with civilians in very rare cases.

I don't know about "very rare." I've been to quite a few good classes, and they're always well-attended. Guys like Haley/Vickers/Falla/Defoor have no trouble filling them.

Your normal CC person is not going to be a crackshot capable of taking down a person in this type of scenario.

Which makes them no different from your normal cop.

Assuming they can and would be able to handle this without causing far more issues is baffling to me.

I'm not assuming they would be able to handle it. I'm assuming a 1% chance of them being able to handle it is better than a 100% chance of no one being able to handle it and having no Plan B aside from dying if the Plan A of running and hiding doesn't work out..

Your argument is essentially that the hypothetical, heretofore never seen possibility of a bunch of CCW holders contributing to a massacre by unintentionally gunning down bystanders is a real enough threat that we should continue to just tell everyone that their only options are to run and, if that doesn't or can't work, die.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
America.

Your America seems to induce a lot more paranoia than mine does. Here's something you can try, don't think of those people as strangers instead consider them to just be friends you haven't met yet.

Alright, now let me get this straight. We have to be paranoid enough to think that we should have lots of people out there with guns to stop attacks, but not paranoid enough to worry about some of the "good people with guns" actually being bad people?

No you don't have to be paranoid or afraid of anything to own a gun. It's a right, you don't need a reason to exercise it. That's like saying you can only use your 1A right to free speech if you have something really important to say. If you are a law abiding US citizen you have the right to keep and bear arms, why you might choose to do so is irrelevant to the existence of the right. There are many reasons why law abiding citizens might want to own a gun, any one of them is valid because any reason is valid because you don't ever have to justify exercising a right to anyone.

But this isn't talking about just owning a gun. This is talking about mass proliferation of concealed guns to protect against "bad guys (who presumably also have guns)". Which I think it incredibly paranoid. So I was saying that you calling him paranoid was incredibly hypocritcal. Thus, "[Paranoid] enough to think that we should have lots of people out there with guns to stop attacks, but not paranoid enough to worry about some of the 'good people with guns' actually being bad people[.]"

I certainly don't think that just owning a gun is paranoid. Although considering the amount of rednecks I know, my perception does corralate the two a bit .

In what way is " mass proliferation" of concealed carry paranoid? Mass proliferation is already the reality in Florida and every other shall issue state and reasonable may issue state. Every single Florida resident with a clean criminal record can get a concealed carry permit all they have to do is ask for one, that's it. If you want one you get one.

I want to retain my 2A rights and I'm a proponent of concealed carry so I have no problem with other law abiding citizens owning and carrying whether I know them or not. Crime is low, people are good, Liberty is awesome there's no paranoia needed. Is it paranoid to have a spare tire in your car, a fire extinguisher in your home, life preservers by a pool, etc? Anywhere you live in America the likelihood of you needing to shoot somebody in self defense is very low but that has nothing to do with your right to own guns and the respective ease in which you can concealed carry. Being prepared is a good thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You know, you might just be right. Random CC person might just be a good enough marksmen to fire in to a crowd and take down his target before accidentally wounding or killing another person. That seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Lets take that risk.

well considering once the shooter started shooting odds are most people dropped to the ground while others spread away from him so yes a clear target would have been present.

Exactly, if somebody thinks they have a shot at stopping a homicidal maniac at the start or in the midst of a mass murder spree I absolutely want that person to take that shot. The alternative is to do nothing and let the maniac keep murdering people unimpeded. How is letting the shooter continue to shoot people with impunity better than trying to stop him and save lives? Even if somebody shoots back and doesn't hit or kill the murderer at least the shots will distract the murderer and draw his attention away from murdering more people.

A question for American dakka members:

Does becoming a crackshot or a very good shot, like any other skill, take hundreds of hours at the range, plus thousands of rounds expended in ammo? I'm willing to bet that it does...

Prestor Jon wrote:
Exactly, if somebody thinks they have a shot at stopping a homicidal maniac at the start or in the midst of a mass murder spree I absolutely want that person to take that shot. The alternative is to do nothing and let the maniac keep murdering people unimpeded. How is letting the shooter continue to shoot people with impunity better than trying to stop him and save lives? Even if somebody shoots back and doesn't hit or kill the murderer at least the shots will distract the murderer and draw his attention away from murdering more people.

Trying to get away will always be your best option.

Most people involved in an active shooter situation will survive the encounter. Drawing attention to yourself by trying to approach the shooter with your weapon will not increase your odds of surviving that encounter, doing the opposite will. That's before you even factor in the fact that instead of one person shooting, there are now multiple people shooting which makes the scene even more chaotic for the first responders involved (look at Umpqua Community College as an example of the right thing to do). In the Orlando case especially, multiple shooters would have most likely made the situation worse given that uniformed officers confronted the attacker immediately. Instead of one person shooting, there are no multiple people shooting with no clear indication of who is who.

Between 2000 and 2013 the FBI found there were 160 active shooter situation. They found that the shooter was stopped by an armed, non-LEO individual exchanging fire with them only 3.1% of the time, compared to unarmed non-LEO individuals ending an active shooter situation by successfully physically restraining the shooter 13.1% of the time. Of course someone will say, "Yeah, well this one time this guy stopped an active shooter!" Of course, it has happened... and the reason why we hear about it is because it's a rare occurrence that happened during another rare occurrence.

Seaward wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Exactly. Firearm training is pretty awful. I am assuming that it only gets better with civilians in very rare cases.

I don't know about "very rare." I've been to quite a few good classes, and they're always well-attended. Guys like Haley/Vickers/Falla/Defoor have no trouble filling them.

Your normal CC person is not going to be a crackshot capable of taking down a person in this type of scenario.

Which makes them no different from your normal cop.

Assuming they can and would be able to handle this without causing far more issues is baffling to me.

I'm not assuming they would be able to handle it. I'm assuming a 1% chance of them being able to handle it is better than a 100% chance of no one being able to handle it and having no Plan B aside from dying if the Plan A of running and hiding doesn't work out..

Your argument is essentially that the hypothetical, heretofore never seen possibility of a bunch of CCW holders contributing to a massacre by unintentionally gunning down bystanders is a real enough threat that we should continue to just tell everyone that their only options are to run and, if that doesn't or can't work, die.

So 1% of the time it is worth the risk. Even though 100% of the time you are going to make yourself a target and on top of that, add to the confusion and possibly harm more people. Seems legit.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A question for American dakka members:

Does becoming a crackshot or a very good shot, like any other skill, take hundreds of hours at the range, plus thousands of rounds expended in ammo? I'm willing to bet that it does...

Of course it does, which is why your average police department or military unit can't afford it.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So 1% of the time it is worth the risk. Even though 100% of the time you are going to make yourself a target and on top of that, add to the confusion and possibly harm more people. Seems legit.

Nah, it's worth the risk 100% of the time. Because a 99% failure rate is better than a 100% failure rate, the latter of which being what you're advocating for. And that's before we even get to the blatant disregard for the right to defend oneself.

The thing is running away has a higher success rate than exchanging fire...

 skyth wrote:
The thing is running away has a higher success rate than exchanging fire...

The majority of the time you'll probably not be in a position with a vantage point that lets you see events unfold clearly and know what's going on. You'll probably hear shots fired and see people panicking and running for the exits and in that scenario it's best to get away and help others flee than to run around trying to figure out what's going on. However, if the situation arises wherein you do see the attacker(s) and you have the opportunity to take a shot then you should. If you can see them they can see you and you're as much of a target as anyone else in the area. I don't want to get shot and I don't want any other people to get murdered either. If the chance presents itself I would do whatever I could to help increase my odds of survival along with everyone else's, whether that's getting people away or trying to take down the shooter. Whatever you can do to reduce casualties is good and the two best ways to do that is to remove people from danger and put down the attacker. If you have the opportunity to stop a mass murderer why wouldn't you take it?