Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Blood and bulletsFollow

#52 Mar 15 2016 at 8:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Because the odds of a person who has spent the time and effort to obtain a concealed weapons permit also spending time and effort becoming a proficient shot with his weapon is pretty high.

Most shots fired by trained police officers miss their target. Which is (part of) why police officers aren't supposed to fire their weapons unless absolutely necessary.


And that's relevant how? Seems like you're suggesting that a random guy with a concealed weapon isn't likely to do any worse than the police in a situation like that.

Quote:
But, sure, random guy with a gun will be the crack shot during an active situation who saves us all. Why not.


Yes. Why not? I also love how you've excluded the middle between "untrained hillbilly with an itchy trigger finger" and "crack shot". In most cases, an armed person only needs to be present. And in a case where the shooter is so incompetent that he shoots one person by surprise point blank and fails to kill him, and then runs around chasing the second person while blasting away with 13 more shots and fails to hit him, I'm thinking "moderately capable of hitting a barn door" is more than sufficient.

I'll also point out that the mere potential for carry (concealed or otherwise) acts to prevent shootings like this. This is one of the factors that gun stats can't show us. How many people don't go on a shooting spree because they are afraid they'll have to deal with armed resistance to their rampage? We can't say for sure, but the stats on mass shootings since we created "gun free zones" seems to suggest that this does have some effect both on the rate of such shootings as a whole, and certainly on the choice of where the shootings occur.

Quote:
Or he's just known a shit ton more "gun people" than you and is considerably better informed.


No. More likely he's playing to a narrative despite personally knowing better. Is every gun owner a paragon of safety and responsibility? No. Of course not. Would I rather that there be a chance that an average "gun person" was in the area and armed if/when some crazy person started randomly shooting people? Yeah. Absolutely. My odds of survival are much higher if that person is there than if he is not. I'd have to dig up the source, but I recall someone doing research on this and concluding that the average number of victim fatalities in a mass shooting or potential mass shooting even (and he used far more stringent criteria for "potential mass shooting event" than I would have), was like 6 times higher when the shooting continued until uniformed security/police arrived versus when someone in the crowd intervened.

Intentionally ensuring that there can't be an armed person in the crowd other than the shooter is just dumb. It's fearful knee-jerk legislation that has done us more harm than good.

Edited, Mar 15th 2016 7:50pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#53 Mar 15 2016 at 8:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
When you're firing with a dozen-plus bystanders, there isn't really an excluded middle between hillbilly and crack shot. You either hit your target or you risk hitting someone else.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#54 Mar 15 2016 at 10:56 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Or he's just known a shit ton more "gun people" than you and is considerably better informed.
No.
Unless we're talking about lolgaxe, then, "yes".
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#55 Mar 15 2016 at 11:09 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Jophiel wrote:
When you're firing with a dozen-plus bystanders, there isn't really an excluded middle between hillbilly and crack shot. You either hit your target or you risk hitting someone else.
gbaji strikes me as a "better 10 innocent go to jail than one guilty man go free" kind of guy.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#56 Mar 16 2016 at 5:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
He previously defended the death penalty potentially executing innocent people by saying that they were probably guilty of something.

So... yeah.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#57 Mar 16 2016 at 5:38 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Because the odds of a person who has spent the time and effort to obtain a concealed weapons permit also spending time and effort becoming a proficient shot with his weapon is pretty high.

Most shots fired by trained police officers miss their target. Which is (part of) why police officers aren't supposed to fire their weapons unless absolutely necessary.


And that's relevant how? Seems like you're suggesting that a random guy with a concealed weapon isn't likely to do any worse than the police in a situation like that.


No, he's saying that the person without training or oversight will do worse than the one with both those things, and that if the ones with both those things have a low hit rate, the untrained guy is gonna shred bystanders.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#58 Mar 16 2016 at 7:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, but just by flashing his gun, the armed guy would magically stop the event.

You know, the event that ended here with the gunman firing at the police.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#59 Mar 16 2016 at 7:53 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
More likely he's playing to a narrative despite personally knowing better.
Most likely you're just wrong.
Jophiel wrote:
You know, the event that ended here with the gunman firing at the police.
Obviously if they only had guns it totally wouldn't have happened.

Edited, Mar 16th 2016 9:57am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#60 Mar 16 2016 at 8:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And in a case where the shooter is so incompetent that he shoots one person by surprise point blank and fails to kill him, and then runs around chasing the second person while blasting away with 13 more shots and fails to hit him, I'm thinking "moderately capable of hitting a barn door" is more than sufficient.

It's amusing that the assumption here is that the shooter didn't have a concealed carry license or any training and wouldn't, a day earlier, have been exactly the sort of guy Gbaji would have wanted walking around packing in case a shooting took place. The shooter was previously a resident at the veterans mission so it's likely he had more gun training than the average person. He also, according to reports, also had a shotgun and a rifle in his truck so it's not as though he likely picked up his pistol a half-hour before the shooting.

Now that he IS shooting, he's incompetent but the OTHER random guy pulling a gun out is going to be the trained, responsible gun owner who can hit a target during an active shooting situation.

Edited, Mar 16th 2016 9:40am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#61 Mar 16 2016 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Shootings like these happening in places where there is little restrictions in the first place doesn't seem to be factoring into the theory.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#62 Mar 16 2016 at 3:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
When you're firing with a dozen-plus bystanders, there isn't really an excluded middle between hillbilly and crack shot. You either hit your target or you risk hitting someone else.


You don't need to be a crack shot to check for bystanders in your line of fire. It's like the first thing they teach you in a gun safety class. There's no "risk hitting someone else" unless there's someone else in your line of fire. Once again, you're managing to ignore the very very large middle to this issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Mar 16 2016 at 3:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
There's no "risk hitting someone else" unless there's someone else in your line of fire.

You're adorable.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#64 Mar 16 2016 at 3:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
No, he's saying that the person without training or oversight will do worse than the one with both those things, and that if the ones with both those things have a low hit rate, the untrained guy is gonna shred bystanders.


May shred bystanders. With a very very very very very small chance of that happening (I'm actually having a hard time finding a single documented case of an armed person intervening in a mass shooting and shooting a bystander, but perhaps you can find one?). Versus a shooter who is intentionally trying to shred bystanders. I guess I just don't get the counter argument here. So you'd rather not have an armed person in the area attempt to protect you from someone who is actively trying to kill you, because there's a very small chance that he might accidentally kill you? That makes zero sense.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Mar 16 2016 at 4:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You know, the event that ended here with the gunman firing at the police.


Was there additional information that he actually fired at the police? I asked about this earlier, but I may have missed the response. The initial account only said he raised his weapon at police after he was told to drop it, prompting them to shoot him. I speculated that since one of the largest loads for a .45 is 14 shots, and he fired 14 shots (according to the account), he may very well have had an empty weapon and been committing suicide by cop.

Did he actually fire at police? Um... And why does this matter? Based on the story we've been told, he was so focused on the one target that pretty much anyone arriving during the chase could have had enough time to intervene safely. Well. Someone armed could have.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#66 Mar 16 2016 at 4:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There's no "risk hitting someone else" unless there's someone else in your line of fire.

You're adorable.


I know I am. I'm also correct. You're speculating about this massive risk from someone accidentally hitting a bystander while intervening in a shooting, but is that even remotely close to the risk of that person *not* intervening? The stats pretty resoundingly say no. Do you have any actual evidence to back up your claim? Or is this just irrational fear speaking?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Mar 16 2016 at 4:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
You know, the event that ended here with the gunman firing at the police.
Was there additional information that he actually fired at the police?

Yes. He fired at the police.
Rapid City Journal wrote:
Officer Barry Young with the Rapid City Police Department was the first member of law enforcement to arrive at the scene. According to Kish and other eyewitnesses, Young told Hicks twice to drop the gun. Kish and other eyewitnesses said they saw Hicks fire at Young, who then shot the gunman twice in the chest with his rifle.

Hicks fell on the western side of the maintenance garage. He was later pronounced dead of his wounds at Rapid City Regional Hospital.
It matters because the Pollyanna notion that just seeing a gun will terrify shooters into standing down isn't actually accurate. Well, I guess it is in the fantastical "we'll never know how many shootings were stopped..." unprovable way.

Or, hey, maybe this guy wasn't aware that police had guns. I bet if he knew he never would have shot!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Mar 16 2016 at 4:07 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
The stats pretty resoundingly say no.
gbaji wrote:
This is one of the factors that gun stats can't show us.
Yes, quite resounding.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#69 Mar 16 2016 at 4:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You're speculating about this massive risk from someone accidentally hitting a bystander while intervening in a shooting, but is that even remotely close to the risk of that person *not* intervening?

Well, in this case the number of people (aside from the shooter) killed was zero. So you're saying that the death toll would have been less than zero if someone else started adding more bullets?

Edited, Mar 16th 2016 5:07pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Mar 16 2016 at 4:21 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There's no "risk hitting someone else" unless there's someone else in your line of fire.
You're adorable.
Does "adorable" mean "idiot"?

gbaji wrote:
Was there additional information that he actually fired at the police?.
Or does "adorable" mean"illiterate"?


____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#71 Mar 16 2016 at 4:24 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
(I'm actually having a hard time finding a single documented case of an armed person intervening in a mass shooting and shooting a bystander, but perhaps you can find one?)..
I'm having a harder time finding a single documented case of an armed person (NOT A COP/ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY) intervening in a mass shooting and shooting the shooter. Could you link a few?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#72 Mar 16 2016 at 4:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"Adorable" means that I'm not actually going to waste time with someone under the delusion that you just make sure there's no one else around during a fire fight and then everything's cool. Because that's what they teach in gun school!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Mar 16 2016 at 11:30 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
When you're firing with a dozen-plus bystanders, there isn't really an excluded middle between hillbilly and crack shot. You either hit your target or you risk hitting someone else.


You don't need to be a crack shot to check for bystanders in your line of fire. It's like the first thing they teach you in a gun safety class. There's no "risk hitting someone else" unless there's someone else in your line of fire. Once again, you're managing to ignore the very very large middle to this issue.


You are just wrong.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#74 Mar 17 2016 at 7:34 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
The whole theory that there will be less shootings if people think there might maybe possibly be a handgun present in the hands of someone who eventually managed to hit a paper plate from ten feet away falls flat on it's face when you realize how people don't seem to have any problem firing at people they know are openly armed and regularly tested in their use.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#75 Mar 17 2016 at 8:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
There's no shootings in Chicago because too many people have guns so they're all afraid to shoot people. True facts!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Mar 17 2016 at 1:22 PM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I got 20 out of 20 in Duck Hunt. That should qualify me to open fire in a crowd.

You don't have to be qualified to open fire in a crowd. You just have to have a certain lack of respect for the lives of your fellow human beings.

You're pro-choice, right? You'll be fine. *ducks*
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 328 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (328)