Concealed Carrier Prevents Mass Shooting At SC Nightclub

Who's to say that the concealed carry person wasn't the reason this other guy pulled in the first place? News is always trying to bias opinion with their half-reported stories. Maybe the shooter and the concealed carry guy both pulled at the same time to resolve their conflict injuring multiple bystanders in the way. In that case, no concealed weapons no shootings.

originally posted by: xuenchenSeveral people were wounded when a shooter started firing into a crowd.

Yeah. Dangerous stuff, those guns.

Looks like no one was killed.

Good, though almost a miracle, given the location, time and population.

The punchline is a patron shot back and wounded the criminal !!!!

So, let's see: guns are bad, because you can kill a person with them. Agreed!

Now, of course, you are all in favour of reducing the baffling amount of guns in the US, right? And of course, it already occured to you too that it should be a Judges decision if somebody is a criminal, not that of some probably intoxicated CCW gangsta.

But no. The startling fact is that you can't see the wood for the trees anymore.

You are right when you say:

* This could have been another mass killing *

Indeed.


And of course, you are now realising that the only way to solve this is to reduce the amount of firearms in socieyt, right?

After all, it would be a wise and logical thing to do,. And we have a lot of proof (e.g. the EU) that strict weapons control helps. But somehow US gun huggers always turn things upside down to ensure they can still own and buy a gun "to defend themselves". Holy cow, what primitive people y'all are. Get this into your thick skulls: the chance of somebody firing a firearm correlates inversely with the amount of trouble one has to go through to obtain a gun. So, more guns equals a bigger chance of hurting people, less guns reduce the chance.

Sorry if that does not fit your narrative or agenda.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Does the EU have a constitutional right about the right of keeping and bearing arms being necessary to secure the free state?

Nah.

Do you have a suggestion short of sending law enforcement door to door, kicking in those doors, raiding every home in America to ensure that criminals hand over their guns?

Nah.

Get that through your thick skull and perhaps you can offer up an actual idea. Doubtful, but juuuust maybe.

For those who are for gun control or confiscation in the US, can you answer some of these questions for me so that I can better understand your perspectives:

1) Are homicides by firearms an epidemic that is out of control if yes can you provide some proof? (hint: FBI says theres about 11k homicides by firearms a year and the number per capita of firearms related deaths have been on the decrease for decades)

2) If you are in favor of no-fly no-buy law .... are you okay that we are changing our country to the Napoleonic code? Or should we still be presumed innocent until proven guilty and follow due precess? (Remember there are already laws that prevent committed criminals from purchasing firearms)

3) If you are for an "Assult Rifle" Ban can you explain to me what an "Assult Rifle" is, and how is that different from my ranch rifle that I use to protect my land and family?

4) If you want to impose new gun control laws ... what laws do you think we need that are not already on the books?

5) Would you agree that people use guns to effectively defend themselves? (Depending on who does the survey the general number are usually around 500,000+ cases yearly. Even a lowball estimate by the left leaning NCVS gives about 100,000 plus a year.)

6) Lastly, do you know that cops in the US are not obligated to protect you or your family? (The duty of a police is to investigate crimes and capture criminals)

a reply to: joemoe

1) Are homicides by firearms an epidemic that is out of control if yes can you provide some proof? (hint: FBI says theres about 11k homicides by firearms a year and the number per capita of firearms related deaths have been on the decrease for decades)

What do you consider to be a normal, acceptable number of handgun deaths to be? Five thousand? Six thousand?

2) If you are in favor of no-fly no-buy law .... are you okay that we are changing our country to the Napoleonic code? Or should we still be presumed innocent until proven guilty and follow due precess? (Remember there are already laws that prevent committed criminals from purchasing firearms)

I do not think that the "no fly list" is constitutional, but until conservatives admit that and get rid of it, it is reasonable to bar "suspected terrorists" from buying arms.

3) If you are for an "Assult Rifle" Ban can you explain to me what an "Assult Rifle" is, and how is that different from my ranch rifle that I use to protect my land and family?

Any semi-automatic long gun designed for non-sporting purposes. You can protect your ranch with a double barreled shotgun filled with buckshot. Coyotes generally don't shoot back.

4) If you want to impose new gun control laws ... what laws do you think we need that are not already on the books?

Requiring gun owners to have insurance. Requiring gun owners to enlist in a militia that will train them in the proper use of their weapons and make them available for the defense of the commonwealth... you know, like the Second Amendment says.

5) Would you agree that people use guns to effectively defend themselves? (Depending on who does the survey the general number are usually around 500,000+ cases yearly. Even a lowball estimate by the left leaning NCVS gives about 100,000 plus a year.)

Yes, and they also use them to kill innocent people by accident. Don't you think it would be nice if everyone was properly trained,and that anti-social types found it hard to access guns?

6) Lastly, do you know that cops in the US are not obligated to protect you or your family? (The duty of a police is to investigate crimes and capture criminals)

Where did you hear that rubbish? "Serve and protect," remember?

Police officers are commissioned to keep citizens safe 24 hours a day and seven days a week. The job of a law enforcement officer carries a great deal of risk, but many people pursue a career as a police officer because they feel a moral duty to protect others. If you are interested in a career as a police officer, it is critical that you understand the duties and obligations of the job.

The primary duty of a police officer is to protect people and property. To accomplish this task, police officers carry out specific job duties on a regular basis, which vary depending on the size and type of their law enforcement organization. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, common duties of a police officer include patrolling designated areas, enforcing laws, answering calls for help, arresting individuals suspected of committing crimes, issuing citations, testifying in court and conducting traffic stops. Police officers also complete reports and fill out forms regarding incidents.

work.chron.com...

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Does the EU have a constitutional right about the right of keeping and bearing arms being necessary to secure the free state?

Nah.

Nah. We're a rather dull bunch here with the lowest homicide rates on the planet. We don't go around lying that we need guns to protect ourselves let alone our "free state" - we have the Police and our Armies for that.

Do you have a suggestion short of sending law enforcement door to door, kicking in those doors, raiding every home in America to ensure that criminals hand over their guns?

Nah.

Yep. Make it illegal to own a gun without a permit and be very hesitant to give somebody a permit. Works fine for us. And yes, we have criminals with guns too, still - we have the lowest homicide numbers is the world. Go figure.

a reply to: DJW001

What do you consider to be a normal, acceptable number of handgun deaths to be? Five thousand? Six thousand?

According to the latest FBI statistics, in 2014 firearm homicides per capita were at their lowest point in over 50 years. Since this number have been decreasing over decades infarction over 50% since the 70's, the problem is really not an epidemic. Compare that to deaths by medical mistakes (250,000 last year and increasing) which is the third leading cause of death 11,000 is a very small number. More lives would be saved making medical practice safer.

I do not think that the "no fly list" is constitutional, but until conservatives admit that and get rid of it, it is reasonable to bar "suspected terrorists" from buying arms.

You are mistaken, I consider myself as a centrist. I am pro freedom, pro guns, pro choice (abortions and sexual preference), in that order. I believe people should have the freedom to chose their lifestyle even if I do not condone or live it. If you think the "no-fly" list is unconstitutional, why should you care what the "conservative" admit to. This is ludicrous.

Any semi-automatic long gun designed for non-sporting purposes. You can protect your ranch with a double barreled shotgun filled with buckshot. Coyotes generally don't shoot back.

Have you ever been on a ranch? Next time you can come over and face coyotes and wild boars with a shotgun. But even more importantly I should be able to use any common tools I need to protect my self and my family. And do you realize that there are millions of AR platform rifles now that are use for "sporting" porposes.

Requiring gun owners to have insurance. Requiring gun owners to enlist in a militia that will train them in the proper use of their weapons and make them available for the defense of the commonwealth... you know, like the Second Amendment says.

Do we have these requirements for the 1st amendment? The Second Admendment guarantee the rights of the people. I realize the interpretation can change, but currently it is the definition supported by the Supreme Court.

Yes, and they also use them to kill innocent people by accident. Don't you think it would be nice if everyone was properly trained,and that anti-social types found it hard to access guns?

So there are at least 100,000 people saved from harm by firearms a year and only about 500 deaths due to accidents. You do the math.

Where did you hear that rubbish? "Serve and protect," remember?

Cops are not required to protect you ... You are responsible for you own protection. This came from multiple court cases, including the Supreme Court. They "Serve and Protect" the public, not you as an individual. Read up on it if you like.

Sorry I haven't got anything to contribute, but this title annoyed me.
That is all.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Here's how pro gun people work. You show them proof that countries with low access to guns have really low homicide rates. Then, they tell you that they need their guns to protect themselves and their families from the state. Since the armed forces of the state are filled with American citizens who happen to be our family members and friends, pro gun people are basically saying they need guns to shoot Americans because apparently our armed forces consisting of our own countrymen are going to shoot us first. I wouldn't even want to live in a world where we had to take up arms against each other. It's the pro gun fantasy though. They obsess over this fantasy and constantly use it as a point of argument. Their minds are all gunned up with guns. It's very strange.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

And you didn't have the levels of gun ownership, legal or otherwise, that the US has, did you?

Nah.

It's already illegal to own a gun six different ways to Sunday. Doesn't seem to be stopping the baddies much, does it?

Nah.

a reply to: BrokedownChevy

This just in: you already live in a world where brother has fought against brother.

Several times.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Obviously. It sucks. That was the point. Derp.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen

Since when is a drunken bar fight between pistol packing yahoos the same as someone shooting up a bunch of strangers with an "assault rifle?" Fail.

Bullets is bullets

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ForteanOrgAnd you didn't have the levels of gun ownership, legal or otherwise, that the US has, did you? Nah.

Nah. We're quite proud of that. We have had a ban on guns for ages and it works. You could simply do as we do: make it nearly impossible to own a gun and have the Police enforce that. If your Police is worth their salt, they will simply arrest the bad guys instead of leaving that to laymen. Whom, might I add, do more harm with their guns than good.

It's already illegal to own a gun six different ways to Sunday. Doesn't seem to be stopping the baddies much, does it?

Nah.

Well, look at this:



.. and then tell me we've got it all wrong again.

Also, only one third of the US population owns a gun. But that one third is very succesful in spreading bullets more or less at random, of which most end up in innocent Americans. A lot of kids too.

Thank Goodness the silent, peaceloving majority will eventually win from the loudmouthed pieceloving minority. Mark my words.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Those other countries don't have a Mexican border to deal with.

But they're learning.

a reply to: Shamrock6

common left tactic

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Circular logic is circular.

One third of the population of the US is more than the entire population of any country in Europe. And that only accounts for legal ownership of guns. So just turn one third of the population into criminals is the solution. Which, again, doesn't really bother the legitimate criminals in possession of firearms.

Does any country in Europe have anything in their constitution, bill of rights, or similar document that guarantees the right to own firearms? Not to my knowledge.

So your solution is to "just simply" make millions of law abiding citizens criminals? That seems totally rational.

It's always entertaining when a euro makes these arguments. You folks seem to prefer to ignore facts like the ones I've given in favor of your statistics. You have lower gun crime rates. Terrific, I'm happy for you. Not really a reason to blithely ignore the things I've pointed out. Unless you're secreting a magic wand that can make all the guns disappear, as well as the right to own one, you haven't addressed two pretty basic issues. "Just make it illegal" hasn't worked out so great thus far has it? But yea, make it more illegal. I'm sure that'll work.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Those other countries don't have a Mexican border to deal with.

But they're learning.

originally posted by: Shamrock6So your solution is to "just simply" make millions of law abiding citizens criminals? That seems totally rational.

Well, you asked for my advice and I gave it. You cleary don't have a handle on things over there, and the solution you offer for your drowning problem is to add more water. Any child can see that's foolish and irrational. Still, you feel it's not - it's like religion; regardless how often you can prove a bigot wrong, he or she will never admit you are right. Facts are facts: we in the EU have very strict weapon regulations and they work. You don't have them, and of course they don't work.

It's always entertaining when a euro makes these arguments. You folks seem to prefer to ignore facts like the ones I've given in favor of your statistics. You have lower gun crime rates.

Actually, we have lower crime rates, period, and almost no gun crime. You have very high gun crime rates over there. Cause: guns. Your solution: add more guns. And then you think I am irrational..

Terrific, I'm happy for you. Not really a reason to blithely ignore the things I've pointed out.

Of course it is. If you were doing coc aine you'd be saying that coke should be legal too, but that does not mean that coke is good for people. Likewise, guns are bad news, always. Ban them, period.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Some of us remember learning Drills in school in case there was a Nuclear exchange....you must be young....and yes large Clubs should have Drills now ....and yes there should be civic support for training people on how to defend themselves on-the-fly.It is after all a National Security Issue .