"Multiple Victims Reported in Illinois Mall Shooting"

reply to post by LooseLipsSinkShips


Your comments represent one of the most ignorant attempts at deductive logic that I have ever seen. I suppose if the authorities were allegedly looking for an overweight White man then you would have remembered the overweight White women that you've seen in and around Lane Bryant? You would then have had the hunch to infer, based on that flawed logic, that the shootings were just a scene in a passion play?

A loose grasp of logic is no better than loose lips.

well i used to only carry if i was going into the metro area.

But yet another shooting, ill be carrying full time now.

These criminals are getting out of hand.

reply to post by C0le


reply to post by gunner36


reply to post by apc


reply to post by Raist


I have a question for all the pro gun people: Do any of you ever consider that if it were one of you who were suddenly fired upon in a crowded area, that even if you were carrying, that you wouldn't have time and/or opportunity for an adequate response? How, even if you were "armed to the teeth" (as some of you are fond of saying), would that fact improve your chances or the the situation?

I've thought about these types of shootings and I cannot come to the clear conclusion, that you seem to have come to, that theses types of situations would happen less frequently if everybody carried weapons. Right now, with the current gun laws and the millions of guns that are already in people's hands, these types of crimes still persist. It seems, to me, that they are becoming more prevalent. Gang bangers blow each other away regardless of whether guns are present with their targets or not. In that scenario, guns are not regarded as a deterrent. Snipers couldn't possibly care less if every single person in the country was carrying. Because of the way snipers choose their targets, it simply doesn't matter. They use invisibility and unpredictability as their accomplices. The crazed gunman in a crowded public place scenario includes a mentally unstable suspect and unpredictability. The suspect generally fires at people randomly, and usually at the persons closet at hand. If the suspect is mentally unstable to begin with, why should the thought of losing one's own life cross the suspect's mind? That's something that would likely take place in the suspect's mind before the rampage, not during, if at all. If the suspect is truly insane, then people carrying firearms may act as more of an incentive than a deterrent. A psychopath would not have a care in the world, regardless of stability of mind. Period. When psychopaths set out to kill, they kill, and if they are caught or sent to jail, they never show any remorse for their actions, simply because they are incapable of having the emotion. Then there is the scorned employee or former employee scenario, where the suspect is temporarily insane and just as determined as the psychopath to get those who the suspect believes are responsible for his or her condition. This type of suspect in the heat of the moment wouldn't care who was armed either.

With the possible exception of the sniper, I do agree that these types of persons would be at increased chance to be lethally subdued. Albeit at different degrees of probability. What I don't understand is how the conclusion can be made that these types of situations would somehow be perceived as being better. Regardless of whether the suspect is killed, wounded, escapes or is jailed, the tragedy of innocent lives having been lost would live on. Whether the victims were strangers or loved ones, a tragedy is a tragedy. To me, it seems that the only people who would be deterred from committing these types of crimes would be rational and mentally stable people. With the possible exception of some gangsters, those types of persons are not generally held responsible for these types of crimes.

Seriously, how would an armed citizenry necessarily also be a deterrent to these types of crimes?





[edit on 3-2-2008 by Areal51]

Originally posted by Areal51


Seriously, how would an armed citizenry necessarily also be a deterrent to these types of crimes?

If more people were armed a criminal would have to think twice about bringing a gun into a public area. Sure he might take down one of us but the other 5 people would drop him like a fly.

reply to post by Areal51


Life is a risk. and the odds of not getting shot by a lunatic are in our favor...

Chances are it won't happen, and chances are should it happen the odds are still in our favor that we won't get shot, And we have an option most people don't, we are either going to die and theirs no more control over that then dying in a car accident but if we do not get shot, we can shoot back, while other people like yourself who aren't armed will get shot in the back running away... I prefer my option over your no option.


Freedom is risky and its a risk I'm willing to take.



[edit on 3-2-2008 by C0le]

reply to post by Golack


That's what I don't agree with. I don't agree with the assumption that a suspect, of the types of crimes that this thread covers and that I've mentioned, "would have to think twice", as you have said. And even if the suspect did, why should that be perceived as a deterrent. Perhaps many suspects think twice, or maybe even more times than that, especially in the case of snipers, but the fact or possibility of suspect considering the actions about to be taken should not be seen as a deterrent. I say this because the crimes that were deterred by a person "thinking twice" are crimes which have never happened. We don't know anything about why those persons "thought better of it". If the suspect goes ahead and commits one of these types of crimes anyway, then the presence of armed citizens did not behave as a deterrent.

reply to post by C0le


Why would my chances of getting shot increase because I, A) wasn't carrying a firearm and B) was running away? Also answer, what if I were carrying a firearm and still chose to run away, how does that increase or decrease my chances of getting shot? Your argument seems to say that if you were carrying a firearm then your chances of getting shot would be lower than mine because I wasn't carrying a firearm. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me.

[Edit: I changed terminology -- "weapon" to "firearm". Got rid of impolite laughter.]



[edit on 3-2-2008 by Areal51]

Originally posted by andy1033
How often is this stuff happening now. This is the problem with easy access to weapons, and surely anyone with any brain could see that. Guns kill, period, not the other way round.

I guess it was guns at fault when 2 cops shot it out and wound each other the other day.

GWINNETT COUNTY, Ga. -- Officials say two officers were shot in Gwinnett County Friday afternoon. One officer is accused of trying to assault a woman and then opening fire on another officer who tried to stop it.

Investigators from the Gwinnett, Fulton and Duluth Police Departments are all involved and looking into the circumstances around what appears to be a gun battle between two police officers.

A true tale of the gun

So we should take guns away from cops to, right!

How many symptoms (beside envy & anger) does a person need before they are seen as crazy enough to be a mass-murderer?

Originally posted by ahuman
How many symptoms (beside envy & anger) does a person need before they are seen as crazy enough to be a mass-murderer?

My best guess is when such a person starts killing lots of people.

reply to post by Areal51



Yeah your chances of survival would be lower, though initially the odds are in anyones favor those odd run out over time, the longer that person is alive and shooting the chances of you getting shot increases, those of us with a firearm could take him out within seconds, and the chances of further victims goes to 0, whereas if he survives those chances increase, as does your chance of being one of those victims...

unlike you who I would presume don't prepare and train for the event of running away from lunatics and dodging their bullets, people like myself who carry and are armed have thousands upon thousands of rounds worth of experience dealing with reactionary targets and training to react to these situations should they happen.

As I have said, I like my chances better then yours.
Your chances depend on luck alone, ours depend partially on luck, and primarily on training.

Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by LooseLipsSinkShips

 

Your comments represent one of the most ignorant attempts at deductive logic that I have ever seen. I suppose if the authorities were allegedly looking for an overweight White man then you would have remembered the overweight White women that you've seen in and around Lane Bryant? You would then have had the hunch to infer, based on that flawed logic, that the shootings were just a scene in a passion play?

A loose grasp of logic is no better than loose lips.

What are you even talking about? they were looking for an overweight black man from second 1. i don't see you doing anything but attacking other posters and criticizing what they have said. Instead of attempting to be the most difficult poster on ATS, why don't you actually add to the thread instead of trying to hog the thread all to yourself? this isn't about you moon man. it's about these innocent victims and the gunman on the loose. get over yourself. quit deflecting your miserable life into each and every one of the posts you make. you are doing this board, and this thread, an injustice.

reply to post by LooseLipsSinkShips


Tell me, what does "big black women working there or walking in with name tags" have to do with the suspect that the police are after? How does your observation of those women lead you to speculate that the crime committed was a crime of passion?

FYI, I am adding to the discussion by pointing out and trying to determine what is factual and what is not. What is opinion and what is fact. And by asking folks to explain their viewpoint to me, so that I might understand the arguments that they make. I'm not simply assuming that they are right or wrong about any of it. Nor have I made any indication of what I think is better. What I would like to see, though, are better explanations. Better explanations rather than the usual emotional invective that passes for a good argument around here. This thread alone, on the first page alone, there are posts from members who automatically refer to those who are proponents of gun control as "slaves" and as "fish in a barrel". Cliches? Sure, but used to humiliate and boost an argument that is not well presented to begin with. And so rather than do the same, I ASK for clarification.



[edit on 3-2-2008 by Areal51]

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.



Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States
-------Noah Webster, 1787


When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
-------George Mason


"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;..."
-----Thomas Jefferson


"The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us." Patrick Henry,1775

the founders knew that it was very important to keep the citizens armed, not only for protection of themselves but to keep the government in check from abusing power.

Your response is futile. at the time of my posting, the reason for the shooting was not known. now the police have stated facts such as all 5 corpses being found in a back room as well as an attempted robbery gone horribly wrong. now we know the man came in there for a robbery. more than likely the gunman has a criminal history as well as a history of drug use and a lack of an education. and i wouldn't be surprised if the shooter was high when he attempted that robbery that turned into a quintuple murder. how is that for deductive reasoning?

[edit on 3-2-2008 by LooseLipsSinkShips]

reply to post by LooseLipsSinkShips


Well, I didn't question the deductive reasoning of authorities dealing with the case. I questioned your reasoning, which clearly as you have just implied, was at best erroneous. And contrary to your viewpoint, it's not an attack on you, it was a response to the reasoning that you offered.

Originally posted by LooseLipsSinkShips
more than likely the gunman has a criminal history as well as a history of drug use and a lack of an education.

Even now you offer up more speculation based on nothing more than your preconceived notions. How much more of a demonstration of futility to understand the true components of the crime do you need?

reply to post by C0le


Well, that's a good explanation. But it's only good if you have the chance to respond. And depending on the situation, someone running may have a better chance of survival than one who is armed who also chooses to shoot it out with the suspect. I understand that you feel more secure because you carry a weapon, and I also understand that the feeling is also due to your faith in your training and your abilities. It's just when I think about a scenario that involves a crowded place, a crazed mass murderer or a sane mass murderer who faces both armed and unarmed individuals, it seems the chances of survival for any person belonging to any group of individuals are unknown. There's also the possibility that the individuals who are obviously armed would be the first persons that a suspect would choose to target.

Anyway, I see your point, but I think being armed and trained for self defense is more effective in burglaries, robberies, and one to one attempted assault or murder situations than for the types of scenarios we've discussed in this thread. For example, when I think about the Virginia Tech case, it's difficult for me to come to the conclusion that an armed faculty, staff, and student body would have necessarily made the campus safer. I say this because it generally seems to me that killers make great use of known variables, whereas the victims are always facing unknown variables.



[edit on 3-2-2008 by Areal51]

wow. It simply floors me to see real people with narrow minded views on gun control. Somehow banning guns is going to make criminals turn in their guns or something? The only people that would be affected would be LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

Time and time again history has shown that gun control only emboldens the still armed criminal. Every place where handguns have been banned has seen a dramatic, out of control rise in gun violence.

As for this situation, the very fact that the media is all but ignoring it shows it doesn't fit their 'pretty white people got shot by crazed teenager' scenario necessary to whip up public hysteria.

Originally posted by Areal51

Originally posted by LooseLipsSinkShips
more than likely the gunman has a criminal history as well as a history of drug use and a lack of an education.

Even now you offer up more speculation based on nothing more than your preconceived notions. How much more of a demonstration of futility to understand the true components of the crime do you need?

you must be an attention floozy. if you don't know that most robbers have a past filled with criminal actions and drugs use then you obviously are as smart as I thought you were. If you don't realize most relationships occur between people of the same race, then you are just as smart as I thought you were. I'm not going to bother with your tangents. Stay on topic. This thread isn't about you or I, it is about the robbery gone awry in Tinley Park resulting in the deaths of 5 women. Now respond, and I will justly ignore it because you offer nothing to the thread but flawed judgement. I now command you to post.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by LooseLipsSinkShips]