US problem with open carry

[oldjones]

Are you obtuse, of course police are people, that's not the point. You asked me for proof i gave it to you, and you provided no proof for your theory. These two "gun carrying" citizens saved many lives or does that not matter, to you, you would rather see them die then have people carrying guns. The laughable lunacy you describe has saved lives. You asked me for proof and i gave it to you and you didn't even mention it in your post, you gave me a typical lefty response, deflect and insult, so predictable, just like the right goes to the conspiracy theory card, pathetic

Did some part of done go over your head?

All you and I have proved is that some well-intentioned people have shot some other people who were using guns to kill others. Period. Full-stop

Some of the victims of the good people were bad people. But some of them were innocent people, equally well-intentioned, who they mistakenly chose as targets only because they were armed. To do the same thing as those good people: to stop a Shooter. That happened, it's the topic of this thread.

You haven't supported your own position that more citizens carrying=more safety for all. You haven't changed anyone's opinion that it's a clearly stupid and dangerous idea, as the sad event we're talking about shows. Go talk to someone else.

 

[azeri99]

Did some part of done go over your head?

All you and I have proved is that some well-intentioned people have shot some other people who were using guns to kill others. Period. Full-stop

Some of the victims of the good people were bad people. But some of them were innocent people, equally well-intentioned, who they mistakenly chose as targets only because they were armed. To do the same thing as those good people: to stop a Shooter. That happened, it's the topic of this thread.

You haven't supported your own position that more citizens carrying=more safety for all. You haven't changed anyone's opinion that it's a clearly stupid and dangerous idea, as the sad event we're talking about shows. Go talk to someone else.

You still haven't given me an example where a good intentioned person was killed by by another good intentioned person who wasn't a police officer. You think my idea is stupid but countless lives were saved in the situations i posted which you probably never bothered to read. Were those lives saved meaningless to you? Some people agree with my position and others don't. To each their own, but to totally dismiss it as stupid and dangerous when you have no evidence to back your claim is shortsighted on your part

 

[oldjones]

You still haven't given me an example where a good intentioned person was killed by by another good intentioned person who wasn't a police officer. You think my idea is stupid but countless lives were saved in the situations i posted which you probably never bothered to read. Were those lives saved meaningless to you? Some people agree with my position and others don't. To each their own, but to totally dismiss it as stupid and dangerous when you have no evidence to back your claim is shortsighted on your part

And you haven't offered any reason why police officers shooting the wrong person are any different from anyone else making that deadly error. But unlike your ordinary citizens doing it for whatever wacko reasons each one may come with, the police are at least formally tasked with the job and monitored. No one tasks trains or monitors all your armed citizens until too late.

This was all said and re-said before. I read your examples; they don't meet any definition of mass shootings (you objected earlier to example that didn't), nor your earlier statement that such shooters use assault rifles and are easy to identify. They certainly don't prove "countless" lives were saved. But their small scale does make them comparable to our topic.

By your logic, the dead guy in Alabama — topic of this thread, remember? — also "saved countless lives". However, as I will continue to say, until some proof to the contrary is offered: Well-intentioned armed citizens — who thought they were doing the right thing — killed him because he looked like a Shooter to them.

When you offer any rationale for how having even more armed citizens will make that sort of mistake less likely you'll be making your very first post supporting your own proposition.

But I doubt you will.

 

[azeri99]

And you haven't offered any reason why police officers shooting the wrong person are any different from anyone else making that deadly error. But unlike your ordinary citizens doing it for whataever wacko reasons each one may come with, the police are at least formally tasked with the job and monitored. No one tasks trains or monitors all your armed citizens until too late.

This was all said and re-said before. I read your examples; they don't meet any definition of mass shootings, nor your statement that such shooters use assault rifles. They certainly don't prove "countless" lives were saved. By your logic, the guy in Alabama — topic of this thread, remember — also saved countless lives. But as I continue to say: well-intentioned armed citizens who thought they were doing the right thing, killed him because he looked like a Shooter to them.

When you can offer any reason why having even more armed citizens will make that sort of mistake less likely you'll be making your very first post supporting your own theory.

No one else has made that error yet except police but in the 12 i posted ordinary citizens were able to identify the shooter and take him out. I shouldn't have called all of these mass shooting, that doesn't discount the fact that these ordinary citizens with guns stopped bad intentioned people with guns. And yes lives were saved. A mistake can be made, but i think that is outweighed by the fact that many more lives can be saved if citizens had guns in these situations, its my opinion, just like yours is the opposite of mine. You think open carry is a bad idea but you also offer no proof on your position , I made the best argument i could, not to convince you of anything just offering a different point of view

 

[basketcase]

Where did i ignore it?Did i not say situations are different?. When police enter a situation they don't have much information. ...

And you think a random guy in the middle of it will be able to identify which gunman is the perp and which gunman is trying to stop them? If the police can't tell, how the hell could some random untrained person.

What experience do you have of an innocent person being killed by a gun carrying citizen in a mass shooter situation,...

I thought that was exactly my point; the events are so rare that they don't justify carrying a gun and jumping at shadows.

 

[basketcase]

...
In your first example - the gunman had mental issues and was previously known to police (who had been warned about the gunman by LGBTQ groups) - so it's as much an example of a failure to treat and prevent. Further the gunman was licensed to carry and worked as an armed security guard - despite his mental issues - which opens up an entirely different debate.

And speaks directly to the actions that can significantly reduce the likelihood of a shooting. No way should a guy with that kind of history of mental illness and police history have the ability to legally own guns.

 

[basketcase]

What do you base your theory on?

Other than the expert he quoted?

but according to basketcase everyone would panic, not true.

Are you incapable of honestly reflecting opposing opinions?

 

[basketcase]

How are examples not proof?...

They are proof that those (12?) individuals were able to act in a reasonable way. Is that supposed to be proof that every one of the 80 million or so gun owners can also behave responsibly? Considering the number of accidental gun deaths I think not.

 

[azeri99]

They are proof that those (12?) individuals were able to act in a reasonable way. Is that supposed to be proof that every one of the 80 million or so gun owners can also behave responsibly? Considering the number of accidental gun deaths I think not.

My point never mentioned accidental deaths there are many as essguy pointed out but in mass shooting situations or even when a citizen stop a gunman from inflicting more damage than he already had nobody else has been injured. There still hasn't been an innocent person killed by a citizen in any of these situations.

 

[azeri99]

And you think a random guy in the middle of it will be able to identify which gunman is the perp and which gunman is trying to stop them? If the police can't tell, how the hell could some random untrained person.



I thought that was exactly my point; the events are so rare that they don't justify carrying a gun and jumping at shadows.

The difference is police are coming from outside, my assumption is the citizen is already inside with the active shooter, if its a club or a bar where its usually dark, then yes i agree with you that it would be diificult to figure out where the shooting is coming from but in broad daylight as in a place of worship which i mentioned previously i don't think it would be so hard to identify.

 

[azeri99]

They are proof that those (12?) individuals were able to act in a reasonable way. Is that supposed to be proof that every one of the 80 million or so gun owners can also behave responsibly? Considering the number of accidental gun deaths I think not.

In every example i gave it contradicts the point you made in post #68 of the 12 incidents i mentioned 2 were military trained the rest were not. Just everyday citizens who didn't panic or act unpredictably and had no experience or training in dealing with gunmen in public.

 

[basketcase]

My point never mentioned accidental deaths....

Because it would show that a huge number of gun owners aren't responsible enough to safely own guns, let alone make good decisions in life or death situations.

 

[basketcase]

The difference is police are coming from outside, ...

Except they weren't. The cops were already in the mall when they heard the shots, just like the guy they shot.

... if its a club or a bar where its usually dark, then yes i agree with you that it would be diificult to figure out where the shooting is coming from but in broad daylight as in a place of worship which i mentioned previously i don't think it would be so hard to identify.

So your claim is now that civilians with guns are the best way to handle mass shooters...except for all the times they aren't. That's a pretty strong argument.

 

[basketcase]

In every example i gave it contradicts the point you made in post #68 of the 12 incidents i mentioned 2 were military trained the rest were not. Just everyday citizens who didn't panic or act unpredictably and had no experience or training in dealing with gunmen in public.

After trying to mis-state my claim to say that everyone would panic, you are now claiming that because a few people didn't panic, an armed populace is justified?

 

[azeri99]

Except they weren't. The cops were already in the mall when they heard the shots, just like the guy they shot.



So your claim is now that civilians with guns are the best way to handle mass shooters...except for all the times they aren't. That's a pretty strong argument.

I didn't say it's the best way i said it can and did save lives in certain situations but you won't acknowledge that and yes the cops were in the mall but only heard the shots but didn't see the guy. In the 2 cases in Pittsburgh and South Carolina both places of worship, Witnesses saw the gunman with the gun as soon as he entered and started shooting, not difficult to identify. We have a difference of opinion lets just leave it at that, You think no one should carry a gun and I think everyone should have that right.

 

[oldjones]

No one else has made that error yet except police but in the 12 i posted ordinary citizens were able to identify the shooter and take him out. I shouldn't have called all of these mass shooting, that doesn't discount the fact that these ordinary citizens with guns stopped bad intentioned people with guns. And yes lives were saved. A mistake can be made, but i think that is outweighed by the fact that many more lives can be saved if citizens had guns in these situations, its my opinion, just like yours is the opposite of mine. You think open carry is a bad idea but you also offer no proof on your position , I made the best argument i could, not to convince you of anything just offering a different point of view

A very novel concept of 'argument', one entirely new to me. But thanks for clarifying, had I known earlier I would likely not have bothered you to ask for proof, evidence or logic. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

But entirely off-topic, this post and previous posts suggest a personal view of police that truly puzzles me. Are you suggesting they are uniquely error-prone dealing with Shooters? Or was it an overstatement to say no civilians have ever made such a mistake? I don't ask you to prove that negative, but please clear up the impression of cops.

 

[azeri99]

A very novel concept of 'argument', one entirely new to me. But thanks for clarifying, had I known earlier I would likely not have bothered you to ask for proof, evidence or logic. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

But entirely off-topic, this post and previous posts suggest a personal view of police that truly puzzles me. Are you suggesting they are uniquely error-prone dealing with Shooters? Or was it an overstatement to say no civilians have ever made such a mistake? I don't ask you to prove that negative, but please clear up the impression of cops.

I did offer proof and examples that normal everyday citizens with guns saved lives but the anti-open carry posters choose to ignore it. I do think regular police are not trained well enough to deal with active shooter situations. I think a team like Swat is much better suited to deal with this type of conflict. As far as regular policing goes they are just fine, they have made errors in judgement and have shot innocent people it will happen since they are involved in dangerous situations , however no one has shown me in any instance where an innocent person was killed by a normal citizen with a gun in an active shooter situation, I don't think it's an overstatement at all unless there is some evidence to say otherwise

 

[oldjones]

I did offer proof and examples that normal everyday citizens with guns saved lives but the anti-open carry posters choose to ignore it. I do think regular police are not trained well enough to deal with active shooter situations. I think a team like Swat is much better suited to deal with this type of conflict. As far as regular policing goes they are just fine, they have made errors in judgement and have shot innocent people it will happen since they are involved in dangerous situations , however no one has shown me in any instance where an innocent person was killed by a normal citizen with a gun in an active shooter situation, I don't think it's an overstatement at all unless there is some evidence to say otherwise

OK, don't answer my question. Thanks to your warning, I'll give the other, 'personal opinion not meant to persuade' stuff a pass.

 

[essguy_]

I did offer proof and examples that normal everyday citizens with guns saved lives but the anti-open carry posters choose to ignore it. I do think regular police are not trained well enough to deal with active shooter situations. I think a team like Swat is much better suited to deal with this type of conflict. As far as regular policing goes they are just fine, they have made errors in judgement and have shot innocent people it will happen since they are involved in dangerous situations , however no one has shown me in any instance where an innocent person was killed by a normal citizen with a gun in an active shooter situation, I don't think it's an overstatement at all unless there is some evidence to say otherwise

The problem is, you're not offering proof. You're offering examples which you have chosen as "proof". If you were to expand your examples to include accidental shootings (eg: when one family member mistakes another family member for an intruder and shoots and kills) your "proof" collapses. Now you could argue that an intruder in your house is different than a mass shooting and I would agree. A mass shooting has far more chaos and far less strategic advantage for the civilian defender.

A trained person with a gun should not add to the risk. An untrained person with a gun is potentially deadly for everybody. So the real problem is training and how that is enforced. Answer: it's not currently. Until that is addressed - putting more guns in the hands of untrained civilians does nothing to improve safety.

 

[azeri99]

OK, don't answer my question. The other, 'personal opinion not meant to persuade' stuff I'll ignore.

What question didn't i answer? I said team like SWAT was better suited to tackle active shooter situations because of their training, as far as regular police officers go, I don't think they get enough training to effectively deal with mass shooting or active shooter situations. I also based my opinion on example and facts I provided. You didn't answer my question. Have you found any evidence where an innocent person was killed by another citizen other than by police during a mass shooting, or is it just your opinion?