250th Mass Shooting in 215 Days

[08BusaKY]

Yes, you are right on both points, but these types of crimes are more often carried out by white males than any other group.

Probably true but there are more white people for the time being.

I saw you referenced this earlier, wonder what the democratic party will have to say about it if it's accurate. Their response will be interesting.

I think they will ignore that fact.

Ohio is an open carry state, this person was nuetralized by police response not private citizens. Open and concealed carry laws often provide a false sense of security. I'm in favor of allowing them with training, as you said.
Normally you are not allowed to carry in bars but it would seem someone should have been. But it happens so fast in some instances. The police took him out fast before he went in that bar.

 

[Mr Brown]

Yes, but even accounting for that they still skew heavily toward white males.
You're probably right, they'll probably call it a false flag attack.
He was outside on the street and nobody engaged him until police arrived.
I get what you're saying, I really do, and I agree with you on much of it. I just cannot ignore the obscene amount of revenue that has been generated by arming the average citizen and pushing the idea that the 2nd amendment is somehow absolute and not up for discussion or revision.

 

[08BusaKY]

Yes, but even accounting for that they still skew heavily toward white males.
You're probably right, they'll probably call it a false flag attack.
He was outside on the street and nobody engaged him until police arrived.
I get what you're saying, I really do, and I agree with you on much of it. I just cannot ignore the obscene amount of revenue that has been generated by arming the average citizen and pushing the idea that the 2nd amendment is somehow absolute and not up for discussion or revision.

The second amendment has already been broken by not allowing bump stops, 10+ mag bans, automatic weapons and now the red flag law. So it really has been revised in a round about way.

 

[Mr Brown]

The second amendment has already been broken by not allowing bump stops, 10+ mag bans, automatic weapons and now the red flag law. So it really has been revised in a round about way.

And limiting access to grenades, tanks, missiles etc. So why the extreme pushback about further limitations? I think that we can all agree that not everybody should be able to buy hand grenades or claymores for example, why is it that there's no hubub about that? They're undeniably arms, and covered as such by the 2nd amendment, but nobody seems to see their restriction as antithetical to America. This country has a problem, the fact that open discourse on the topic is co-opted by those operating for financial interests is hugely problematic for me.

 

[WuzzaCBXRider]

The second amendment has already been broken by not allowing bump stops, 10+ mag bans, automatic weapons and now the red flag law. So it really has been revised in a round about way.

BS. The 2nd amendment has not been broken. I live in the most gun restrictive state there is and yet I can (and do) have as many weapons as I want. Smaller capacity mags don’t bother me as I can have as many mags as I want. Bump stops make weapons into (nearly) fully auto weapons. There are many people who should not have access to automatic weapons. The red flag law, when applied properly is also a safety feature that doesn’t bother me. It just might save lives and I can’t see it’s application hurting anyone. Revisions or amendments to the constitution are (our) rights too.

 

[08BusaKY]

And limiting access to grenades, tanks, missiles etc. So why the extreme pushback about further limitations? I think that we can all agree that not everybody should be able to buy hand grenades or claymores for example, why is it that there's no hubub about that? They're undeniably arms, and covered as such by the 2nd amendment, but nobody seems to see their restriction as antithetical to America. This country has a problem, the fact that open discourse on the topic is co-opted by those operating for financial interests is hugely problematic for me.

No we should not have those things but at the time it was written the founders said "well armed". It was meant to fight back against a tyrannical government.

I don't even own a so called assault rifle or feel the need to but I am armed with what I hope would meet my needs. I also have a carry permit even though you no longer need one in my state. I am ok with background checks, training laws, even red flag laws if there is a verified reason before they take your arms.

I just think if guns are taken way from law abiding citizens that will remove any deterrent from anyone breaking in your house or robbing you on the street. Besides what if there is a zombie apocalypse?

 

[08BusaKY]

BS. The 2nd amendment has not been broken. I live in the most gun restrictive state there is and yet I can (and do) have as many weapons as I want. Smaller capacity mags don’t bother me as I can have as many mags as I want. Bump stops make weapons into (nearly) fully auto weapons. There are many people who should not have access to automatic weapons. The red flag law, when applied properly is also a safety feature that doesn’t bother me. It just might save lives and I can’t see it’s application hurting anyone. Revisions or amendments to the constitution are (our) rights too.

Read my reply to MrBrown below. I was in Ca. when they banned assault weapons and magazines over 10 rounds in the 90's. So all the states are not the same.

 

[Mr Brown]

No we should not have those things but at the time it was written the founders said "well armed". It was meant to fight back against a tyrannical government.

I don't even own a so called assault rifle or feel the need to but I am armed with what I hope would meet my needs. I also have a carry permit even though you no longer need one in my state. I am ok with background checks, training laws, even red flag laws if there is a verified reason before they take your arms.

I just think if guns are taken way from law abiding citizens that will remove any deterrent from anyone breaking in your house or robbing you on the street. Besides what if there is a zombie apocalypse?

I'm not in favor of taking guns away, but I am absolutely in favor of restricting access going forward. Those are, contrary to the hyper-emotional talking points common in the gun lobby groups, two different things. Now, if there's a zombie apocalypse I'm suiting up in my leathers, helmet and gloves and going hunting!

 

[MLTMDNS]

There are mass shootings by other than white people too (e.g. Fort Hood, the Navel Base, the night club in FL and more). Plus all the shootings by white people do not always target minorities.

The Ohio shooter was a DEM who praised an Antifa member who attacked an ICE facility. He also shot his sister and other whites.

I think we need to eliminate gun free zones. That would deter some mass shootings as well as cut them short. I do believe training should be required to carry but people need to be allowed to carry.

So 1000 Pistol Pete’s in the same area shooting at a shooter is a bright idea, give me a break.

 

[Jbaby1969]

So 1000 Pistol Pete’s in the same area shooting at a shooter is a bright idea, give me a break.

That’s what the police do. Unfortunately it takes time for them to get to the scene. By then the damage is done.

 

[Mr Brown]

So 1000 Pistol Pete’s in the same area shooting at a shooter is a bright idea, give me a break.

Actually, violent crime rates drop in areas which allow people to carry guns. It's an inconvenient fact for the left to swallow, but it serves as a deterrent.

 

[08BusaKY]

So 1000 Pistol Pete’s in the same area shooting at a shooter is a bright idea, give me a break.

Same as Mr Brown said. The shooter would probably never went in there. Also people that are trained would have taken him out fast.

I also get tired of seeing people mowed down in gun free zones. That is were shooters seem to target. If guns are made illegal he would have found a way to get one. Just like drugs there would be a big black market for guns.

What is your idea sport?

 

[Bumblebee]

Same as Mr Brown said. The shooter would probably never went in there. Also people that are trained would have taken him out fast.

I also get tired of seeing people mowed down in gun free zones. That is were shooters seem to target. If guns are made illegal he would have found a way to get one. Just like drugs there would be a big black market for guns.

What is your idea sport?

Bad guys zone in on 'soft targets" if they know almost everyone in a target zone has the potential to fight back, they will avoid those areas...

Bad guys can always get guns almost everywhere.

I see open or concealed carry to be a good deterrent. I wish we had it here.

 

[fallenarch]

Not so sure about the arming everyone idea. First these shooters generally go into a scene expecting to be killed, so I'm not so sure they are rationalizing things as you all are. If they start facing more resistance my guess is they will up their armament and refine their tactics. Second, police practice constantly for shooting and tactical situations. Imagine the average American in a highly stressful situation with max chaos making solid shooting and targeting decisions? My guess is the collateral damage sky-rockets. So arming everyone is simply impractical and it's been proven to be a bad idea. Look at the wild west, not the myth of the west but the actual 1800's west. Guns had to be controlled to achieve a civilized society.

 

[08BusaKY]

Not so sure about the arming everyone idea. First these shooters generally go into a scene expecting to be killed, so I'm not so sure they are rationalizing things as you all are. If they start facing more resistance my guess is they will up their armament and refine their tactics. Second, police practice constantly for shooting and tactical situations. Imagine the average American in a highly stressful situation with max chaos making solid shooting and targeting decisions? My guess is the collateral damage sky-rockets. So arming everyone is simply impractical and it's been proven to be a bad idea. Look at the wild west, not the myth of the west but the actual 1800's west. Guns had to be controlled to achieve a civilized society.

Even if everyone were allowed to carry not all would. Also most people that carry would probably run away from the shooter and only use a gun if they were backed in a corner. Then there are those few that would confront one and hopefully put him down. There is no easy answer but I for one will be armed where permitted. When I go to a restaurant I position myself where I see who is coming in and preferably by and exit.

Maybe armed guards should be placed in some places kind of like an air marshal on a plane.

 

[MLTMDNS]

I’m not against guns or even people carrying them. I can totally get why people like and collect guns. I have to admit that when is see some one open carrying I think “that dude has a complex”. People probably think that about me when I pull up on a Busa, oh well...
My sister is a teacher, as were my parents so I’m really turned off by the idea of arming teachers. The idea teachers can be trained easily does a disservice to our police and military.
I’m probably benefiting from the idea that “that guy might have a gun” as I travel the country, I’ll admit that. It is a very complicated issue and unfortunately extremely political. Fast motorcycles, on the other hand, are an issue that brings a large number of different people together.

 

[Mr Brown]

Allowing people to carry isn't the same as requiring it. Evidence shows that violent crime rates drop in areas where the general public is potentially armed. Everyone in the area doesn't need to be armed, in fact most won't be. A deterrent is about prevention not response. I think having a bunch of "because I can" type people carrying firearms is a bad idea, as is having designated gun free zones. I hear people all the time taking the same line that @greg3852 used about defense of loved ones, but without the benefit of his training and experience. Billy and Sally Bada$$ who are looking for a way to show how tough they are will likely do more harm than good, that's if they can even stop pi$$ing themselves long enough to figure out how to draw their weapon and which end to point. Training is just as much about knowing when to use a weapon as how to use one. Using a firearm actively is not as easy as people think, ask anyone who's ever actually been shot at or shot at real live humans.

 

[Mr Brown]

I’m not against guns or even people carrying them. I can totally get why people like and collect guns. I have to admit that when is see some one open carrying I think “that dude has a complex”. People probably think that about me when I pull up on a Busa, oh well...
My sister is a teacher, as were my parents so I’m really turned off by the idea of arming teachers. The idea teachers can be trained easily does a disservice to our police and military.
I’m probably benefiting from the idea that “that guy might have a gun” as I travel the country, I’ll admit that. It is a very complicated issue and unfortunately extremely political. Fast motorcycles, on the other hand, are an issue that brings a large number of different people together.

Arming teachers is a terrible idea. Having armed police in schools is a much better one.
The gun issue is politicized because of the huge amount of money at stake, make no mistake about that.

 

[Falkonworks]

Yes, you are right on both points, but these types of crimes are more often carried out by white males than any other group.


I saw you referenced this earlier, wonder what the democratic party will have to say about it if it's accurate. Their response will be interesting.


Ohio is an open carry state, this person was nuetralized by police response not private citizens. Open and concealed carry laws often provide a false sense of security. I'm in favor of allowing them with training, as you said.

Just want to play devil's advocate about open/concealed carry. Just because a state allows it, doesn't necessarily mean that someone is going to be there with a tool on them to stop the threat. Think of how many people you encounter on a daily basis who don't have a gun on them, or have never even touched a gun. I live in a rural area so it's a bit different here. Lot's of hunters, but they're almost all fud's. They care about their hunting rifles/shotguns and that's about it.

I know a lot of people WAY more into guns than I am that never carry. I know a few people who only own one handgun, and it goes with them everywhere. I'm somewhere in between. I only own weapons that could possibly serve a purpose to me if I needed them to.

I carry every single day, everywhere I go, unless it's a *sigh* gun free zone. Sometimes open, sometimes concealed. The AR is usually with me as well.

To me it's more about saving me and mine, than stopping a mass murderer. If someone attacks me or my loved ones, I do not have time to wait for the cops. It's all about taking your life in your own hands and getting the job done. That being said, if I happened to be in a place where a shooting was taking place I would absolutely step in and to to stop it, without a second thought. I think if more people had this mentality and actually strapped up every day and made good habits to practice, things could be a lot different.

Just my .02 cents.

 

[fallenarch]