Guncontrolism: A pathology of the weak and fearful.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg


Are you actually suggesting that if even more people had had a gun, the number of deaths would have been less?

Let's see.

So, you're sitting there at a table drinking some wine, enjoying yourself. Paris, after all. Now, suddenly a car passes by. You sip your wine and while looking over the edge of the glass you suddenly realise there is something strange going on: you hear gunshots, you see some guys with an automatic weapon. It all happens in 1 or 2 seconds. So, you duck. And it's all over, around you are many that did not have the luck and reflexes. Do you actually think that it would have made a difference that you would have had a gun?

Or you are in a theatre, a rock concert. Oh, man, come on, even in the US you're leaving your weapons behind if you go to a concert. But okay, let's say everybody had had a weapon. So, you're sitting there, enjoying a concert, loud music, banging of the drums - and then you hear gunshots, see people flee and fall down. What do you suggest you do - pull out the gun, shoot at a gunman you can't even clearly see? Also, the public would have gotten confused. Shots would have gone off everywhere, killing many more and confusing the public even further.

The movies aren't real. More guns do not protect you against this type of attack.

Well since I was in law enforcement, in the Detroit area, for years I have some experience.

Police are typically not at a scene when something goes down like the Paris shootings. In Paris they were running around shooting cowering people under tables, behind bars, and any place they tried to hide.

If one citizen that was a responsible and trained with a gun had been there, then yes there would have been less casualties and less dead people.

This has nothing to do with the movies, and more to do with sitting ducks, in a barrel.

originally posted by: Realtruth


If one citizen that was a responsible and trained with a gun had been there, then yes there would have been less casualties and less dead people.

Not necessarily.
That person could have been amongst the first victims, so you cannot categorically say that.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: machineintelligence

Because the US is 100% Communist, eh? Tell that to all the victims of mass shootings, accidental discharges, and the families of those who have committed suicide. Tell them that guns make the world a better place.

Sorry, but if crazy people get into power and the military follows through, you're getting genocided either way. Not much AR-15s can do against drone strikes.

You do know that a laser can blind a drone right?after it blinded its easier to avoid. also wearing thermal insulation hides bodyheat(you can get th e material and fashion clothes from it easy enough) So please keep on believing in the drones superiority.

The only thing worse that a gun nut is an anti-gun nut. You folks can argue to the Nth degree.

I support the ownership and right to carry firearms in the US.

I own 3 pistols, 2 rifles and a shot gun. My wife does not like guns.

I store my guns away from my property at my wife's wishes.

I own a Louisville Slugger for home protection. I think going with the traditional wooden bat over aluminum is a call back to and older era......Reggie Jackson autographed at that.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Did you bother to read the links?

Woodham drove his mother's car to Pearl High School. Wearing a trench coat to hide his rifle when he entered the school, Woodham fatally shot Lydia Kaye Dew and Christina Menefee, his former girlfriend, then went on to wound seven others.

The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from his truck and, spotting Woodham attempting to flee the parking lot after the shooting, shouted for him to stop. After Woodham's mother's car got stuck in the grass, Myrick ordered him out of the car at gunpoint and detained Woodham until police arrived at the scene.

Source,

Note that Joel Myrick did not prevent the killing, he only captured the bad actor. Also note that Joel Myrick was not a civilian, he was a Commander in the Reserve.

On January 16, 2002, 43-year-old Nigerian former student Peter Odighizuwa arrived on the Appalachian School of Law campus with a handgun. Odighizuwa first discussed his academic problems with professor Dale Rubin, where he reportedly told Rubin to pray for him. Odighizuwa returned to the school around 1 p.m. and proceeded to the offices of Dean Anthony Sutin and Professor Thomas Blackwell, where he opened fire with a .380 ACP semi-automatic handgun. According to a county coroner, powder burns indicated that both victims were shot at point blank range. Also killed was student Angela Dales. Three students were wounded.

When Odighizuwa left the building where the shooting took place, he was approached by two students with personal firearms and one unarmed student. There are two versions of the events that transpired at that moment, one by Tracy Bridges and one by Ted Besen.

According to Bridges, at the first sound of gunfire, he and fellow student Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, ran to their vehicles to retrieve their personally-owned firearms placed in their glove compartments. Mikael Gross, a police officer from Grifton, North Carolina retrieved a 9 mm pistol and body armor. Bridges, a county sheriff's deputy from Asheville, North Carolina, retrieved his .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver's seat of his Chevrolet Tahoe. Bridges and Gross approached Odighizuwa from different angles, with Bridges yelling at Odighizuwa to drop his gun.Odighizuwa then dropped his firearm and was subdued by several other unarmed students, including Ted Besen and Todd Ross.

According to Besen, before Odighizuwa saw Bridges and Gross with their weapons, Odighizuwa set down his gun and raised his arms like he was mocking people. Besen, a Marine veteran and former police officer in Wilmington, North Carolina, engaged in a physical confrontation with Odighizuwa, and knocked him to the ground. Bridges and Gross then arrived with their guns once Odighizuwa was tackled.[5] Additional witnesses at the scene stated they did not see Bridges or Gross with their guns at the time Besen started subduing Odighizuwa. Once Odighizuwa was securely held down, Gross went back to his vehicle and retrieved handcuffs to detain Odighizuwa until police could arrive.

Once again, the shootings were not prevented and the citizens who apprehended the shooter were not exactly civilians.

Plans to slay everyone in the Muskegon, Michigan, store and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their "gnawing hunger for crack coc aine" fell apart for a band of would-be killers after one of their victims fought back. Store owner Clare Cooper was returning behind the counter after showing three of the four conspirators some jewelry, when one of the group pulled out a gun and shot him four times in the back. Stumbling for the safety of his bullet-proof glass-encased counter, Cooper managed to grab his shotgun and fire as the suspects fled. They were all later apprehended and the three present during the shooting face life imprisonment.

Source.

Wow, this one actually made me laugh out loud. The NRA is counting the delusional rambling of crackheads as a serious plan to kill everyone in Muskegan. Even if we let this count, Mukegan was not saved because a merchant shot at them as they ran away, Muskegan was saved because law enforcement officers arrested them!

I could run down the list, but in pretty much every case the intervention was too late, or if timely, it was unclear if murder was actually planned (as opposed to armed robbery) and the citizen with the CCW was either active or retired police or military.

I have no problem with properly trained individuals carrying concealed weapons. Police and military personnel are trained to evaluate a crisis situation and use appropriate tactics. If a civilian wants to get a concealed carry permit, I would hope that they would be required to undergo similar training.

Remember, the Second Amendment is about establishing a "well organized militia." Making sure that gun owners are trained to use their weapons properly honors that intent.

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: Realtruth


If one citizen that was a responsible and trained with a gun had been there, then yes there would have been less casualties and less dead people.

Not necessarily.
That person could have been amongst the first victims, so you cannot categorically say that.

That's why more trained responsible citizens with guns will make these kinds of people think before ever attacking.

a reply to: machineintelligence

I think mostly you have a very corrupt blend of rights going on. No one is sure what they can and cannot do.

I am one for owning a gun, yet I live in the UK where I do not posses one. I actually hate not owning a gun to protect myself in my home, as this concerns me in the event of something out of my control happening to my loved ones. It is a given right to have your own protection, however with that protection. The so called LAW wishes to send innocent people to prison just as much as the criminal breaking into your home.

I see this as the main cause for some people fearing using weapons as defense because I can assure you. If they said tomorrow, in your home, on your lawn even running away on that lawn you can shoot! Then many more would be popping rounds towards criminals a little more.

originally posted by: Logman

originally posted by: machineintelligence
Guncontrolism. Yes I just coined that phrase but I will expand on my little creation in this thread. I see the gun control activist as someone who longs for big brother to take responsibility for their physical safety. They are fearful of danger and even more fearful of taking responsibility for protecting themselves, their loved ones, or their neighbors, and friends. If attacked the average gun control activist seeks the safety of cowering in front of the assailant with hands raised until big brother can send help in the form of trained and armed people on brother's payroll.

So, no different from your average Gun-Toting gun nut who actually doesn't carry a weapon and gets caught in an active shooter incident?

It's sickening how people like you think you are super tough when you need a gun to feel your manliness. I bet even if you had a gun and were caught in a San Bernandino-type event you'd be one of the first to run.

People that want gun control want to see an end to mass shootings. They don't want to see massive firefights in the streets between nutcases and terrorists.

Dumb thread. Dumb mindset.

No, people that want gun control have a victimization fetish that prioritizes the "course of justice" over preventing a crime from happening in the first place.

I always found it ironic that the people who would rather allow another person control over their lives are SO iINTERESTED in letting Cops do their thing when they are being victimized, but when they are not being victimized they condemn those same police. Hypocrisy, the lot of you, it seems to be a common theme with you Progressive sheep types. When you're being victimized, it's ok to call the cops and have the thug arrested, but the next week when BLM starts complaining about supposed racial profiling or other such nonsense, you are the first o rd to jump down a cops throat.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: machineintelligence

Did you bother to read the links?

Woodham drove his mother's car to Pearl High School. Wearing a trench coat to hide his rifle when he entered the school, Woodham fatally shot Lydia Kaye Dew and Christina Menefee, his former girlfriend, then went on to wound seven others.

The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from his truck and, spotting Woodham attempting to flee the parking lot after the shooting, shouted for him to stop. After Woodham's mother's car got stuck in the grass, Myrick ordered him out of the car at gunpoint and detained Woodham until police arrived at the scene.

Source,

Note that Joel Myrick did not prevent the killing, he only captured the bad actor. Also note that Joel Myrick was not a civilian, he was a Commander in the Reserve.

On January 16, 2002, 43-year-old Nigerian former student Peter Odighizuwa arrived on the Appalachian School of Law campus with a handgun. Odighizuwa first discussed his academic problems with professor Dale Rubin, where he reportedly told Rubin to pray for him. Odighizuwa returned to the school around 1 p.m. and proceeded to the offices of Dean Anthony Sutin and Professor Thomas Blackwell, where he opened fire with a .380 ACP semi-automatic handgun. According to a county coroner, powder burns indicated that both victims were shot at point blank range. Also killed was student Angela Dales. Three students were wounded.

When Odighizuwa left the building where the shooting took place, he was approached by two students with personal firearms and one unarmed student. There are two versions of the events that transpired at that moment, one by Tracy Bridges and one by Ted Besen.

According to Bridges, at the first sound of gunfire, he and fellow student Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, ran to their vehicles to retrieve their personally-owned firearms placed in their glove compartments. Mikael Gross, a police officer from Grifton, North Carolina retrieved a 9 mm pistol and body armor. Bridges, a county sheriff's deputy from Asheville, North Carolina, retrieved his .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver's seat of his Chevrolet Tahoe. Bridges and Gross approached Odighizuwa from different angles, with Bridges yelling at Odighizuwa to drop his gun.Odighizuwa then dropped his firearm and was subdued by several other unarmed students, including Ted Besen and Todd Ross.

According to Besen, before Odighizuwa saw Bridges and Gross with their weapons, Odighizuwa set down his gun and raised his arms like he was mocking people. Besen, a Marine veteran and former police officer in Wilmington, North Carolina, engaged in a physical confrontation with Odighizuwa, and knocked him to the ground. Bridges and Gross then arrived with their guns once Odighizuwa was tackled.[5] Additional witnesses at the scene stated they did not see Bridges or Gross with their guns at the time Besen started subduing Odighizuwa. Once Odighizuwa was securely held down, Gross went back to his vehicle and retrieved handcuffs to detain Odighizuwa until police could arrive.

Once again, the shootings were not prevented and the citizens who apprehended the shooter were not exactly civilians.

Plans to slay everyone in the Muskegon, Michigan, store and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their "gnawing hunger for crack coc aine" fell apart for a band of would-be killers after one of their victims fought back. Store owner Clare Cooper was returning behind the counter after showing three of the four conspirators some jewelry, when one of the group pulled out a gun and shot him four times in the back. Stumbling for the safety of his bullet-proof glass-encased counter, Cooper managed to grab his shotgun and fire as the suspects fled. They were all later apprehended and the three present during the shooting face life imprisonment.

Source.

Wow, this one actually made me laugh out loud. The NRA is counting the delusional rambling of crackheads as a serious plan to kill everyone in Muskegan. Even if we let this count, Mukegan was not saved because a merchant shot at them as they ran away, Muskegan was saved because law enforcement officers arrested them!

I could run down the list, but in pretty much every case the intervention was too late, or if timely, it was unclear if murder was actually planned (as opposed to armed robbery) and the citizen with the CCW was either active or retired police or military.

I have no problem with properly trained individuals carrying concealed weapons. Police and military personnel are trained to evaluate a crisis situation and use appropriate tactics. If a civilian wants to get a concealed carry permit, I would hope that they would be required to undergo similar training.

Remember, the Second Amendment is about establishing a "well organized militia." Making sure that gun owners are trained to use their weapons properly honors that intent.

You are attempting to read between the lines, and either purposefully or not are not seeing past these incidents. You are dropping the ball at the end of the actual scenario that ends when the threat is neutralized saying "see!, they didn't save any lives!". By doing this you are not counting the lives that were potentially saved (we will never know because they were stopped). In the first case, what would have stopped that perp who's car got stuck from firing at another passerby, or fleeing on foot and shooting other innocents? or perhaps at police once they arrived? Those possibilities were ELIMINATED by the assistant principle who had the power to stop him from doing that (under threat of death) The exact same thing could be said for the next case. What would have stopped him from firing at other people in the school? Yes, I know that he was tackled and not shot, but the threat of being shot himself was what caused him to lay down his weapon, by your own account, regardless of who did it. Your third case? What could have happened had he not shot those burglars? They could have came in and finished him off, another unsuspecting customer could have walked in and became another victim. Both of those possibilities were diminished by the owner shooting at them.

It a the consequences we DONT SEE that are the saving graces of guns. When a burglar at a gas station is shot, it throws a monkey wrench in the gears of the plans he may have had. You lose interest very quickly in continuing your robbery or eliminating witnesses when you have just taken three shots into your stomach. Same thing with home invasions, its dopes like my previous post who are willing to allow criminals to just have their way with society why they are emboldened in the first place. Seriously, if burglars started hearing that other burglars were getting shot left and right when they burglarized homes with people still inside them (say, at night time), at the VERY LEAST, most logical criminals are going to change their plans to burglarized homes when people ARENT HOME (this saving potential lives since they won't be interacting with people as much)

a reply to: chuck258

Most burglars are going to do everything they can to avoid breaking into a house while it has occupants anyway...

a reply to: chuck258

Most mass murderers wind up committing suicide, so we can say that statistically, few if any lives were saved in those scenarios. One thing we can say with certainty is that in each case, it was military or police training that saved the day, not necessarily guns.

originally posted by: Realtruth
Well since I was in law enforcement, in the Detroit area, for years I have some experience.

Detroit - USA. Yes, it figures. Feast your eyes on this. .

But we're in Europe here. The law enforcement officers I know are totally utterly against the public having guns. It's bad enough if you end up in a firefight without civilians joining in.

Police are typically not at a scene when something goes down like the Paris shootings. In Paris they were running around shooting cowering people under tables, behind bars, and any place they tried to hide.

Indeed, that happened. Had the public had had guns, that still would have happened. Don't overestimate the publics skills nor underestimate their anxiety when in a situation like that. Even trained professionals tend to duck first, then analyse the situation.

If one citizen that was a responsible and trained with a gun had been there, then yes there would have been less casualties and less dead people.

Trained and responsible. There you said it. That's exactly why we, in Europe, want the POLICE to carry the guns. They are trained and we expect them to act responsibly. Now, you, as a former law enforcement officer, should be well aware of what roams the streets and lives in the hoods. Sure, there are plenty of responsible citizens, but even the responsible ones aren't trained to know WHEN to use a firearm. And those that know WHEN to use a firearm are - rightfully so - hesitant to use if if there was a chance of them hitting an innocent bystander. A fine example of this was the young professional - kudos to him - that refused to shoot his gun in the mall.

This has nothing to do with the movies, and more to do with sitting ducks, in a barrel.

Now, let's say there had been a cop present on site. A trained and responsible professional. Do you think it would have made a difference?

originally posted by: RealtruthThat's why more trained responsible citizens with guns will make these kinds of people think before ever attacking.

If only that were true I might even consider joining you in your quest for weapons everywhere. No, these kinds of people are set on killing as many as they can before eventually being killed themselves. Make no mistake: they KNOW they will not survive the shootings and bombings they initiate. They fully expect to be shot - sometimes they shoot themselves, or blow themselves up.

Thinking about the consequences only is done if you care about the consequences.

originally posted by: chuck258
No, people that want gun control have a victimization fetish that prioritizes the "course of justice" over preventing a crime from happening in the first place.

Indeed. I'm in favour of gun control. I'm in favour of preventing crimes too. Hence I don't want guns to be available to Joe Public, who might shoot himself, his cat or his wife. Or at best gets himself shot during a robbery because he thinks he is Superman as he carries a gun, but may actually shoot innocent bystanders. And yes, I'm in favour of the "course of justice". Holy cow, in what type of world do you live if you are AGAINST the course of justice?

See, the problem is that EVERYBODY thinks he or she is capable of judging whom to shoot or when to shoot. But in practice, that is not really easy. It takes years (!) of training and experience.

a reply to: chuck258

No, people that want gun control have a victimization fetish that prioritizes the "course of justice" over preventing a crime from happening in the first place.

So you are in favor of thought police monitoring everyone and arresting or killing those that might commit a crime? Interesting take on the Constitution.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Just so you know, we don't have "tons of guns lying around" in the US. We may have tons of guns. But they aren't just "lying around". It's those little, petty, snippy, word slights...your kind use. Libs always say they mean this, but say that. It's in thier words. They can't even lie convincingly.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

"Most" do? Maybe. But that implies, some don't. Be good, to be able, to defend self and castle in those "rare" events.

a reply to: murphy22

I live in Australia, if they aren't locked in a vault that is bolted to the ground, separate from their ammunition, they are "lying around".
But also what I mean, is that they are "lying around" in that the Government doesn't have data on them. (Unless I'm incorrect on that and all firearms must be registered?)

Allow me to clarify: I support the second amendment and it is probably more accurate to say that I am anti-gun-control rather than pro-gun, but specifically for the US due to the context of its situation, and also because I think it is ultimately too late to reverse the trend.

On another note, please do not use liberal as an insult on the internet where tone cannot be conveyed. The actual meaning of the word is positive. It's like calling someone "beautiful" as a slur without saying it sarcastically.

The OP is correct. It's logical thinking. People that fear inanimate objects are,.. well? Afraid. People fearing inanimate objects in the hands of other men are fearful. People that don't equalize thier existence on par with the barbarian are either afraid, delusional or cowardly. It's that simple. But these same people have no problem expecting a LEO to step in and take a knife, bat or bullet for them. But believing a person with selfpreservation is the one with mental deficiency.

Nope! The OP is spot on!

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I actually agree with you on points. But as you say, Your from down under.

It is against Federal law in the US. For Fed. Gov. to require gun registration. The States can but "they" can't. Some states do, some don't. Mine does not.

One thing the feds do? Is require "backround checks". Which is another form of registration. Because it keeps a record of the purchase "You" made. It's very lawyer smooth...if you get my drift?

That's why us "gun nuts" don't want more "laws". They're never honest about the intent of them. And they can't enforce all them anyway.