Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

Blood and bulletsFollow

#77 Mar 17 2016 at 1:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
*ducks*

Where?? Zap! Zap!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 Mar 17 2016 at 1:57 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
*ducks*
Where?? Zap! Zap!
Doo doo doot doo doot.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#79 Mar 17 2016 at 2:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Shit, was that dog in my line of fire? I forgot to check. This is why I flunked out of light-gun school Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#80 Mar 17 2016 at 8:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
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.


Hence, my question. All the earlier reports (and the info in the OP) only said that he pointed his gun at police, not that he had fired at them (him, as it turns out). And for the love of God, when you quote a news article, could you link to it too?

Quote:
It matters because the Pollyanna notion that just seeing a gun will terrify shooters into standing down isn't actually accurate.


And the Pollyanna notion that my entire argument rests on this is even less accurate. I never said that seeing a gun will always terrify the shooters into standing down. I said that the fact that there might be an armed person in the crowd will influence the decision of a potential shooter to go through with it in the first place. I also said that in most cases, the mere presence of an armed person is sufficient to end the shooting event (I never said how though). There are plenty of examples of a shooter being confronted with an armed person and choosing to flee rather than shoot it out. That this case appears to be an exception to that rule does not change the rule. And when it does get into a shoot out, this does in nearly every case end the shooting event (one way or another).

The fact is that in the overwhelming majority of shootings, the shooting ends shortly after the first armed person (other than the shooter) arrives on scene. Whether that person is an armed civilian or law enforcement does not seem to make much difference. The number of innocent bystanders who die *after* the first armed person intervenes is almost always zero. One can conclude from this that the best way to minimize the number of fatalities in a shooting event is to minimize the amount of time it takes for that first armed person to arrive. And the best way to do that (barring a police station being 1-2 blocks away), is to allow and even encourage concealed carry by civilians.

That's this thing we call logic. I get that it violates your emotion driven agenda, but it is the truth.

Quote:
Well, I guess it is in the fantastical "we'll never know how many shootings were stopped..." unprovable way.


The exact number of shootings prevented because of the potential of an armed person in the crowd can't be proven (duh), but we can point to the significant rise in the rate and severity of such shootings right after we started creating "gun free zones". Which should give us an idea. I mean, I suppose we could just speculate that there was some significant social change that just happened to occur right around the mid 90s, that more or less doubled the rate of mass shooting events. We don't know what that could be, but maybe there's some magic involved or something. Or... We could make the much more reasonable leap that the rate of disturbed individuals who might contemplate such a thing has remained relatively constant, but the ease of committing such an act has increased with the creation of gun free zones, and that's why we've seen the increase in actual shootings.

So yeah, we can't say for 100% certain which shootings may or may not have occurred if there weren't gun free zones around, but there's strong evidence to suggest that we've suffered more of them as a result of those zones. I'm not sure how one can rationally discount this as a factor.

Quote:
Or, hey, maybe this guy wasn't aware that police had guns. I bet if he knew he never would have shot!


Or maybe he's the exception to the rule. Most shooters don't wait until the cops arrive and then get into a shootout with them. Most shooters kill themselves as soon as they believe that police have arrived on scene. Because most shooters don't want to or intent to survive the incident, and the last thing they want is to be merely wounded by the police. This guys shooting was a personal vendetta, so it's not a great case to use. Most mass shootings (which this one wasn't, although I suppose it could have been) are less about anger at the people personally, and more a desire on the part of the shooter to show power and control over others that he lacks in his day to day life. That means minimizing the odds of anyone challenging that power. Hence, why they usually go to great lengths to avoid encounters with anyone who is armed.

Again, this shooting was an exception, not the rule. Um... But even as an exception, it's pretty clear that had one of the many people in the area been armed, the risk to bystanders would have been much less than it was. Imagine if the guy who got the attention of the shooter had been armed? Instead of throwing rocks at the shooter to get his attention, and then running around hoping he or someone else didn't get shot, he could have simply shot the guy immediately and ended the danger. Same ultimate result, far less risk to others.


Oh. And I'm still waiting for you to provide data on the number of times in the history of mass shootings in the US that an armed civilian intervening with the shooter has accidentally shot an innocent bystander. You know, since your entire argument rests on the assumption that they would make the event more dangerous to bystanders rather than less so. Can you do this? Cause we do have stats on how many shootings that sort of intervention has ended (prior to police arrival). Would be helpful to have some sort of data on how many times the presence of such a person in the crowd did actually make the situation worse. I've yet to find a single case of this happening, but perhaps your superior interweb research skills will find something.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#81 Mar 17 2016 at 8:15 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
And I'm still waiting for you to provide data on the number of times in the history of mass shootings in the US that an armed civilian intervening with the shooter has accidentally shot an innocent bystander.
We're still waiting from four years ago with your data on all the times someone who thought there might be someone armed dissuaded them from a shooting. Figure you'll have that any day now.

Just for fun, here's one proving it happens. So that's ... 100% more times than your claim.

Edited, Mar 17th 2016 10:19pm 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.
#82 Mar 17 2016 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Don't care enough to play the No True Scotsman game, really.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#83 Mar 17 2016 at 8:30 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Don't care enough to play the No True Scotsman game, really.
It's kind of fun. Like here's one where a cop does it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#85 Mar 17 2016 at 8:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Guy at a bus stop in Chicago got shot this past winter by a store clerk shooting at an armed robber outside his store. But see that won't count because Gbaji already set the bar at "mass shootings" despite the event in the OP not qualifying either. See how that works?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#86 Mar 18 2016 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
See how that works?
I know, I know. I just like watching the backpedaling. I'm doing a little more searching and I think my favorite story I found so far was a bystander getting shot in the foot after two people started shooting each other over a parking space.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#87 Mar 22 2016 at 6:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Missed this:

Friar Bijou wrote:
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?


What? Really? Um... A simple google search would answer your question, but apparently you actually spent zero time looking, so how about I just link one somewhat ironic article on the subject

The irony is that you are not alone in your willful ignorance:

Quote:
Backers of laws that let pretty much all law-abiding people carry concealed guns in public places often argue that these laws will sometimes enable people to stop mass shootings. Opponents occasionally ask: If that’s so, what examples can one give of civilians armed with guns stopping such shootings? Sometimes, I hear people asking if even one such example can be found, or saying that they haven’t heard of even one such example.



There are plenty of examples of this happening, and many many many times more examples of basic use of firearms for defense against criminal activity (which may not involve preventing a potential shooting event).

I'll ask again though: Where are the examples of an armed citizen intervening in a shooting event and accidentally hitting bystanders in the process? This was the primary concern raised, right? So if we have, on the one hand, actual examples of lives being saved by armed civilians in the vicinity, shouldn't we require examples of living being lost by those attempting to intervene if we're even going to attempt to counter that argument?


I just find it amusing that you guys are more than willing to reject the notion that armed civilians can save lives in these kinds of shootings, despite plenty of cases in which just that has happened, while accepting as fact that notion that they'll accidentally kill people instead of saving them, once again despite a marked lack of supporting evidence at all. And to maintain this illusion, you have to... what? Just stick your head in the sand and pretend?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Mar 22 2016 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Missed this:
Friar Bijou wrote:
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?


What? Really? Um... A simple google search would answer your question, but apparently you actually spent zero time looking, so how about I just link one somewhat ironic article on the subject
I asked for a link because I didn't know, not because I thought i never happened.

Thanks for sharing the10 known incidents in the last 18 years, though.

We'll just ignore the other vagaries in the link, right? No sence in linking WHAT I ASKED FOR.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#89 Mar 23 2016 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Where are the examples of an armed citizen intervening in a shooting event and accidentally hitting bystanders in the process?
Couple posts up. Where are the examples of the potential of an armed citizen preventing a shooting event at all?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#90 Mar 23 2016 at 8:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Where are the examples of an armed citizen intervening in a shooting event and accidentally hitting bystanders in the process?
Couple posts up. Where are the examples of the potential of an armed citizen preventing a shooting event at all?


First off, "preventing a shooting event at all" isn't the sole criteria for my argument. "Reducing the number of victim fatalities" is a much more significant one, and one that we have pretty hard evidence for.

It's kinda hard to tell if a shooting was "prevented", since it... you know... didn't happen. Any example I could give you could counter that the guy in question wasn't really going to shoot or kill anyone, so nothing was prevented. I recall making a similar point about the mall shooting in Oregon where the guy was heading towards a crowd of people trapped inside one of the stores, reloaded his gun, jammed, then was working on clearing the jam when he saw the armed civilian pointing his weapon at him and immediately stopped attempting to clear the gun and reload and ran off towards a service exit, where he committed suicide. The response was that there was no way to know that he wasn't done with the shooting anyway, and decided to kill himself, and the armed civilian had no impact on his decision at all. So, in the face of that level of absurd opposition to my argument, it's hard to believe that any level of evidence will matter.

Um... But why not just read the link I provided. Here's one example that exactly matches what you're asking for:

Quote:
5. Near Spartanburg, S.C., in 2012, Jesse Gates went to his church armed with a shotgun and kicked in a door. But Aaron Guyton, who had a concealed-carry license, drew his gun and pointed it at Gates, and other parishioners then disarmed Gates. Note that in this instance, unlike the others, it’s possible that the criminal wasn’t planning on killing anyone, but just brought the shotgun to church and kicked in the door to draw attention to himself or vent his frustration.


No one was shot, so any potential shooting was "prevented". I'm sure you'll come up with some clever reason to reject this though. But if you do, then you're only proving your own criteria to be meaningless. Which is fine, given that there's plenty of evidence using other criteria that supports the use of concealed carry by civilians.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#91 Mar 23 2016 at 10:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I recall making a similar point about the mall shooting in Oregon where the guy was heading towards a crowd of people trapped inside one of the stores, reloaded his gun, jammed, then was working on clearing the jam when he saw the armed civilian pointing his weapon at him and immediately stopped attempting to clear the gun and reload and ran off towards a service exit, where he committed suicide. The response was that there was no way to know that he wasn't done with the shooting anyway, and decided to kill himself, and the armed civilian had no impact on his decision at all. So, in the face of that level of absurd opposition to my argument, it's hard to believe that any level of evidence will matter.

As opposed to "He was so afraid of someone shooting him that he shot himself". And not immediately shot himself but rather went down to another level, encountered a worker, passed him by and THEN shot himself in terror of the guy a floor above who he may or may not have seen.

Said shooter wasn't stalking some group of people when he was bravely stopped, he spent most of his rounds firing at the ceiling. He also had already cleared his weapon as evidenced by the fact that he used said weapon to shoot himself. It's pretty much a given that his intent was to commit suicide since hanging around a mall and firing shots isn't a situation you walk away from.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Mar 23 2016 at 11:40 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
First off, "preventing a shooting event at all" isn't the sole criteria for my argument.
And I'm not asking about the other criteria, we're discussing one peanut in your sea of shit.
gbaji wrote:
it's hard to believe that any level of evidence will matter.
Your evidence was literally just the guy himself saying "Yeah, I totally made him shoot himself." That's not evidence, that's conjecture. In the same thread you also tried to prove that two states with the same gun laws that had similar shooting events somehow proved that states with more restrictive laws caused more shooting deaths. But sure, absurd opposition.
gbaji wrote:
I'm sure you'll come up with some clever reason to reject this though.
Don't really need to, your own example does it for me. If he was only there to make noise then a shooting wasn't prevented. However, that's about the best that you'll ever do, so let's just go with it. Last October during the Oregon Umpqua Community College shooting there was at least one person (John Parker) with a concealed weapon around and aware of the situation, seven injured, ten dead, and he had nothing to do with stopping it. The cops did. Concealed carry didn't prevent the shooting, and it didn't lessen the damage. It was a fun case, since people jumped at the chance to blame gun-free zones on the shooting and it turned out the school wasn't a gun-free zone. Most shootings stop because the shooter just decides to stop. 20% of active shooter events are disabled by people that are unarmed, 3% by "good guys with guns." In fact, the same FBI study found only 3 cases between 2000 and 2012 where an armed civilian shot the attacker, and in two of those incidents it was an off-duty cop.

Don't forget that last January in Vegas a cop shot a kid while dealing with a man who was just waving a gun around and pointing it at people. I don't have the most faith in cops and military when it comes to marksmanship, but I have far less in civilians.
gbaji wrote:
But if you do, then you're only proving your own criteria to be meaningless.
And as usual I'm the only one proving anything.
gbaji wrote:
Which is fine, given that there's plenty of evidence using other criteria that supports the use of concealed carry by civilians.
Not nearly as plentiful as you'd like everyone to believe, but at least even you admit that this one is nonsense.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 272 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (272)