Toronto Escorts

US problem with open carry

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
An interesting story for those who think a gun is the best defence against other people with guns. Seems not to be true if your skin is darker.


Seems that after a mall shooting, a black man drew his gun in self defence and was helping usher people to safety when he was spotted by police and promptly shot. The gun wasn't much protection for him. Also unsurprisingly is the story from the police has changed from them killing the shooter to killing a man brandishing a gun to killing a man who had his gun out after a public shooting.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/27/us/alabama-mall-shooting-conflicting-police-accounts-trnd/index.html

And yes, Alabama is an open carry state.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Waving a gun in the presence of any shooter, let alone in front of a car-full of trained shooters wearing Kevlar™ is a sure-fire — pqardon the word-choice — way to make yourself an important target. And the more folks carrying (open or concealed) the more incentive for the 'bad shooters' to shoot even suspected carriers first.

I won't argue the racism possibility, but even if one of those cops was the worst bigot in uniform, they'd would still be regretting what happened, and the needless death that directly resulted from too many guns in too many places.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
Of course having a gun at an active shooting is a major cause for police to have a concern. That's sort of my point to the people who think everyone being armed will mean people can pull their guns to stop bad guys. The potential racial aspect where the police shot the guy very very quickly is just a side issue to my point.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
The pro-carry argument is that the armed citizen can down the Shooter well before the cops arrive and prevent other deaths. But that rational requires the cops not to respond quickly, or they'll do as they did here and misidentify the Savior — last armed man standing — as the Shooter. Meantime every shooting pumps the effort to get cops there quicker.

It also requires the hyped-up, untrained Savior to promptly put their weapon away (lest they be shot by mistake) but while they're still uncertain the Shooter was alone. That sets up the possibility that police (or other armed and over-zealous citizens) might over-react when they 'discover' that holstered, or worse the concealed weapon at what they consider a still-active shooting scene.

The fewer the guns, the less the likelihood of gun deaths.
 

azeri99

Banned
Sep 19, 2018
949
1
0
The pro-carry argument is that the armed citizen can down the Shooter well before the cops arrive and prevent other deaths. But that rational requires the cops not to respond quickly, or they'll do as they did here and misidentify the Savior — last armed man standing — as the Shooter. Meantime every shooting pumps the effort to get cops there quicker.

It also requires the hyped-up, untrained Savior to promptly put their weapon away (lest they be shot by mistake) but while they're still uncertain the Shooter was alone. That sets up the possibility that police (or other armed and over-zealous citizens) might over-react when they 'discover' that holstered, or worse the concealed weapon at what they consider a still-active shooting scene.

The fewer the guns, the less the likelihood of gun deaths.
It depends on the situation, if everybody had a gun it would cut down on the number mass shootings, chances are someone in the crowd would be able to take out the shooter before they could kill a large amount of people, but yes fewer guns would lead to fewer gun deaths in general
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
It depends on the situation, if everybody had a gun it would cut down on the number mass shootings, chances are someone in the crowd would be able to take out the shooter before they could kill a large amount of people, but yes fewer guns would lead to fewer gun deaths in general
Chances are all the random armed people will create a higher death toll as they shoot at all the other armed people thinking each other are the assailant.
 

azeri99

Banned
Sep 19, 2018
949
1
0
Chances are all the random armed people will create a higher death toll as they shoot at all the other armed people thinking each other are the assailant.
Well then you have to accept that mass shooting will become the norm, if no one else is armed, people with bad intentions will always find a way to get a gun
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
Well then you have to accept that mass shooting will become the norm, if no one else is armed, people with bad intentions will always find a way to get a gun
They aren't the norm in Canada. Hmmm. I wonder if the easy availability of guns and the promotion of gun culture in the US has something to do with it.
 

azeri99

Banned
Sep 19, 2018
949
1
0
They aren't the norm in Canada. Hmmm. I wonder if the easy availability of guns and the promotion of gun culture in the US has something to do with it.
No, thankfully they are not, I live in Toronto and gun violence has risen dramatically, as far as I know our gun laws haven't changed to make it easier to get guns, criminals or people with bad intentions will always find a way to get guns
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
It depends on the situation, if everybody had a gun it would cut down on the number mass shootings, chances are someone in the crowd would be able to take out the shooter before they could kill a large amount of people, but yes fewer guns would lead to fewer gun deaths in general
If everyone had a gun, that would just make it easier for the shooter to walk to the best shooting position unchallenged. While they shot from the best cover available, chances are excellent that the resulting mass firestorm from untrained amateur vigilantes would injure or kill many of those armed citizens by ricochets, badly aimed shots or by being misidentified as the Shooter.

Don't forget, that last is exactly what this thread is about, and those were trained police with just two guns to sort out, not a crowd.

And just how do you imagine all that crowd-firing would get stopped? There's a reason soldiers and police are trained in discipline and command before they're given guns. And they still have a percentage of rogues, rascals and wackos.
 

azeri99

Banned
Sep 19, 2018
949
1
0
If everyone had a gun, that would just make it easier for the shooter to walk to the best shooting position unchallenged. While they shot from the best cover available, chances are excellent that the resulting mass firestorm from untrained amateur vigilantes would injure or kill many of those armed citizens by ricochets, badly aimed shots or by being misidentified as the Shooter.

Don't forget, that last is exactly what this thread is about, and those were trained police with just two guns to sort out, not a crowd.

And just how do you imagine all that crowd-firing would get stopped? There's a reason soldiers and police are trained in discipline and command before they're given guns. And they still have a percentage of rogues, rascals and wackos.
It's possible, however if there aren't any police or guards wherever a mass shooting happens, then everyone else there are sitting ducks waiting to get slaughtered, I really don't know the answer.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
It's possible, however if there aren't any police or guards wherever a mass shooting happens, then everyone else there are sitting ducks waiting to get slaughtered, I really don't know the answer.
Which is considerably superior to the looney idea of making things worse by arming all the untrained, undisciplined, uninformed ducks and expecting them to kill a Shooter who looks just like all of them. Without collateral damage.

Responsible people of average intelligence put their thinking — and tax dollars — into having competent police where they're needed, so cheap-ass dimwits won't think they have to go armed.
 

azeri99

Banned
Sep 19, 2018
949
1
0
Which is considerably superior to the looney idea of making things worse by arming all the untrained, undisciplined, uninformed ducks and expecting them to kill a Shooter who looks just like all of them. Without collateral damage.

Responsible people of average intelligence put their thinking — and tax dollars — into having competent police where they're needed, so cheap-ass dimwits won't think they have to go armed.
The problem is the competent police often show up after it's too late, they can't be everywhere and aren't mind readers, they can't predict when and where it's going to happen, it might just be a regular part of life. Quite a few of these shootings have been in bars or clubs, it's hard to have police in all these places.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
If this were the case, they wouldn't arm plain clothed officers.
Plain clothes cops are trained better than an average gun owner (especially ion dealing with armed suspects) and are in regular contact with other officers.

Most importantly they are trained to loudly identify themselves as police officers.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
No, thankfully they are not, I live in Toronto and gun violence has risen dramatically, as far as I know our gun laws haven't changed to make it easier to get guns, criminals or people with bad intentions will always find a way to get guns
Except you are discussing mass shooting, not criminal violence. And in the US, it is far easier for someone with mental health issues to legally get a gun and that is the problem.

It seems that you have been convinced that your life and the lives of the vast majority are under constant threat as opposed to the reality that mass shootings are infrequent (and somewhat preventable).
 
Toronto Escorts