Armed bystander almost shot hero that disarmed AZ shooter

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Liquesence

 

And that is the security of a republic.

Pretty simple. It's insurance.

The right to bear arms, yes, to secure the nation from oppressors foreign and domestic. The purpose for carrying said arms on one's person is not to secure the republic (directly), but for those who are weak to feel empowered due to having a deadly weapon at their side. Pretty simple

reply to post by getreadyalready


No my friend you miss the point...these near misses create incidents. This is now on ats. Do you think this is acceptable... I know i dont!

14-Year-Old Boy Gets A Gun For His Birthday & Kills His Whole Family! (Even Granny)

kx

reply to post by purplemer


I'm in that thread with you, he got the gun back in September, all indications are that he is a stable and responsible young man up until this tragic incident. If he just snapped, or if there was repressed rage from abuse, then a butcher knife, a house fire, or a poison dinner would all have served equally as well as the gun. Banning guns would not have saved this poor kid or his family.

reply to post by Liquesence

The purpose for carrying said arms on one's person is not to secure the republic (directly), but for those who are weak to feel empowered due to having a deadly weapon at their side. Pretty simple

so in other words it is a ego massager..it makes you feel big...
Im soz that is real messed up

kx

reply to post by purplemer


There is a wonderful quote from a military general that sums up this position well. I will go look for it, but in essence he proves that it is the gun that creates equality and freedom among people. Without it, we would all be victims to the bigger, meaner, more aggressive among us. The gun is an equalizer among men. It isn't for ego, it is for equality.

reply to post by purplemer


Not the elegant quote I was looking for, but still relavent information on how guns are equalizers:

Criminologist Gary Kleck agrees with Lott, noting that firearms benefit women because "guns are the weapon type whose effectiveness is least dependent on the physical strength of its user."

Whereas a woman may be severely beaten, even killed, if she resists by using her fists – where the man likely has her outmatched – says Lott, "by far the safest course of action is to have a gun. A woman who behaves passively is 2.5 times as likely to end up being seriously injured as a woman who has a gun."

The reason for this fact is simple: Firearms reduce the power differential between the weak and the strong, making it harder for the strong to prey upon the weak.

Source

reply to post by purplemer


yes, peeps should not have a gun if he's too dumb to use one. But Gorman91 isn't. So Gorman91 should have a gun because he's not liable to be dumb. Do not assume I mean everyone shouldn't.

Also a gun can be used for good. IE,



Anything good can be used for evil. And anything evil can be used for good. There is nothing on this Earth that can only be used for good and only for evil. A car is a 2 ton killing machine with no need to reload in the right hands.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by purplemer

 

There is a wonderful quote from a military general that sums up this position well. I will go look for it, but in essence he proves that it is the gun that creates equality and freedom among people. Without it, we would all be victims to the bigger, meaner, more aggressive among us. The gun is an equalizer among men. It isn't for ego, it is for equality.

and where do you draw the line with this equalizer... should i be abe to have a a machine gun or a tatical nucear wepon... Evidently i line needs to be drawn in the sand....the question is where.
Your stats from rape might seem impressive at first but put then against the recent scientific study that you are 4.5 times more likely to be shot if you carry a gun and your stats come in thumbs down.


kx

reply to post by purplemer


That 4.5x stat is skewed. It doesn't take into account legal vs. illegal gun ownership. Sure, people that participate in violent crimes and carry guns are more likely to be shot, but peaceful citizens carrying lawful weapons rarely, if ever get shot.

See, we can make any statistic say anything we want, such as "alcohol-related crashes." They check the alcohol levels of people in a crash, and it is alcohol related, regardless of who was at fault, so it skews the numbers.

Drug dealers and gang bangers shooting each other cause your statistic to be entirely useless. I wonder how many people with licensed concealed weapons are victims of crimes compared to how many unarmed citizens are victims of crimes?

reply to post by Gorman91


A gun is a proffesional instrument and should not be in the hands of the general public... People that think that it is there right to have arms so they can rise up against the government are delusoinal. Armed or not armed unless the armed forces are on your side. In this day and age you dont stand a chance..

kx

reply to post by purplemer


I did happen to take statistics in college and I did take sociology as well. Part of sociology is learning how a proper survey works. You must have a large enough random sample from diverse enough sources. 1300 or 1400 people in one of the nations most dangerous citys is not large enough or diverse enough.

The fact that they found only six percent of shootng victims were armed blows away the conclusion. You can not be more likely to get shot with a gun than without if 94% of victims are unarmed.

Common sense and a little education go a long way. So how about refuting some of the truth and statistics you avoided in my last long post filled with them. You know, the one you skipped so that you could comment on my post from the first page.

You still have not brought one strong argument in this thread. You post outdated stats about kids and a study that is flawed. Two sources to support your point. That isn't exactly debating or having a conversation. Untill you get serious I'm out of this thread.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Is this the quote?

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." --James Burgh (Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses) [London, 1774-1775]

reply to post by purplemer


It's not the Death Knell.

Just a wake up call.

Don't stand around holding the gun after someone just got shot.

He could have easily taken the bullets out and set it down for police. He probably didn't need to do that since the gun was already empty.

reply to post by MikeNice81


Nope, but that one is interesting as well.

No, the one I'm looking for says something about the gun being the only thing that has ever made men truly equal, and how it is the only thing that keeps peace between the weak and the strong. It was very elegant and poetic. I was surprised to learn it was a general that wrote it. It was kind of touchy-feely.

reply to post by Randall07
I don't understand why guns have to be carried around like we're in the old west

Another nail, I agree. I dont own a gun, and dont have a problem with lawbiding gunowners. However if everybody knew that everybody else carried a gun...is it possible there would be "LESS" crime? Like in the old west? Just asking.

reply to post by purplemer


The m4A1 is a professional instrument. The Bazooka is a professional instrument. The pistol is not. This is why the army houses special schools for most any gun except the hand gun. because the hand gun is not a professional weapon. It is a generic weapon that even a kid could use.

And please do not change the topic once you lose it. You were saying something about it being only good for evil? Well now what, it's only good for professionals? Are those professionals evil?

The thing about professional tools is the longer they exist, the less profession is needed to use it. Examples include the car, the computer, and the sword.

Originally posted by CX

Originally posted by purplemer

Well this is another death knell for the pro gun movement. This guy could have shot the guy that disarmed Jared Loughner

Could have done, but didn't. He showed great maturity, restraint and presence of mind to carry out a split second risk assesment before letting loose with a weapon.

If anything, it is one of example of how not all gunowners are the trigger happy irresponsible people that they are made out to be.

CX.

So are we saying it's safe to assume that every gun owner would show restraint, maturity and critical thinking?

Somehow, I'm not comforted... I do think guns should be allowed as I believe the Constitution is still valid in this country but perhaps a clarification of the law need be made. As one of the users posted, I would have no issue with everyone owning a gun in their home that would serve as protection for their family. I do not, however, want just some guy carrying a weapon through the mall where kids play, simply because he has a permit to.

There should be no reason for any civilian to carry weapons in public if the State does its job of providing adequate protection to all populace. It does not, however. I do not feel safe with the police looking after me; in fact in most cases I look at police as the criminals. So, until things change and we start feeling safe in this country I will still side with allowing guns for everyone, but I wish it were not so.

I've lived in countries in Europe where guns were not allowed and the crime was actually pretty much unnoticeable. In fact, I've seen people leave their news kiosks open, in the middle of the day and walk away for a half an hour lunch, come back to an undisturbed kiosk. They just know that their culture is more civilized and that nothing will happen. It would probably be pretty hard to see that anywhere in the US - we're just a much more violent society.

That also probably means that we should allow guns even less.

Oh well, my opinions.

Khar

reply to post by G.A.G.


Old West Violence Mostly A Myth

Once again as summer progresses, tourists are trying to recapture the romance of the West. Recalling the violent images fostered by Hollywood, they seek out ghost towns, ride horseback at dude ranches and take part in exciting re-enactments of conflicts among vigilantes, sheriffs, cowboys and Indians.

What they don't realize is that the violence of the West is largely a myth.

Yes, there were isolated examples of violence, but the true story of the American West is one of cooperation, not conflict.

Read the rest at the link.

reply to post by Kharron


I think a logical conclusion is that you can own what you want on your property as long as you have no mental conditions, but in the public, create two kinds of permit. Permit A is for home owners, permit B is for public areas. And permit B would have higher standards. IQ tests, clear criminal background, etc etc. That way you can be comforted in the knowledge that when you see a gun owner in the public locals, they are intelligent and slow to anger.

reply to post by MikeNice81


"LESS" crime? Like in the old west? This comes straight from my post. You are talking to me right? Little quick on the "TRIGGER-FINGER" Today???