You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How can we guard against this?
- Thread starter OhioGuy
- Start date
Onward Allusion
New member
Let me clarify. Vegas was an anomaly in that it was a shooter shooting from 600 yards away into a crowd with a rapid fire rifle. I personally can't recall another similar mass shooting scenario. Even with this shooting-fish-in-a-barrel scenario...how many dead? Less than sixty. Again, an individual with a gun is not effective if the desire is to kill large numbers of individuals. Tractor trailers, fire, gas, weaponized drone & other WMDs are much better suited. Which brings the question - why the hell are so many antis and the media hell bent on demonizing something no more than a tool. Also, if everyone who can legally carry actually does, it pretty much nullifies the Newsweek article.
Onward Allusion
New member
He'd have been deadlier with a heavy truck..... or an armored bulldozer ....or a bomb ..... or chlorine gas ..... it's a high density, soft target..... and those won't go away .....
Quote:
The impact on the nation was significant.
...only because it fit the news media template .... if it bleeds, it leads ....
Can I get an "Amen!" ?
Double Naught Spy
New member
The point at which "anomalies" keep getting repeated, they aren't anomalies any more. They are repeating and morphing. You can claim that they are anomalies, but that doesn't change the fact that they keep occurring.
That other things may be more deadily isn't relevant.
Well they don't. They never have and never will. We don't even get many people who are gun owners with carry permits or in constitutional carry states that carry all the time.
That other things may be more deadily isn't relevant.
Also, if everyone who can legally carry actually does, it pretty much nullifies the Newsweek article.
Well they don't. They never have and never will. We don't even get many people who are gun owners with carry permits or in constitutional carry states that carry all the time.
One must keep in mind that terrorists with guns are not a statistically significant threat to the citizens of the U.S. Way far less than medical mistakes, auto accidents, and drug overdoses...less than almost all other causes. Shootings in general (suicides, gangs, etc.) do not make it to the top ten of the causes of death...despite the fervor in which the media reports them.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Statistically significant is not the appropriate term. That means a sample statistic analysis does not seem likely to have occurred by chance given a specific probability error chosen for significance with its concomitant Type One error rate.
What you are probably saying that it is a rare event, given your determination of what is a risk of low probability to have occurred.
What you are probably saying that it is a rare event, given your determination of what is a risk of low probability to have occurred.
And what they don't report.
Canada with it's strict gun laws still has mass shootings, they just are not reported here.
England has had a steep rise in stabbings.
Mass stabbing occured by student in PA school.
Then the more recent terror attacks in Europe have been made by vehicles.
Supposedly more people are killed by hammers and baseball bats than guns. No outcry for banning them.
There is always a way.
Canada with it's strict gun laws still has mass shootings, they just are not reported here.
England has had a steep rise in stabbings.
Mass stabbing occured by student in PA school.
Then the more recent terror attacks in Europe have been made by vehicles.
Supposedly more people are killed by hammers and baseball bats than guns. No outcry for banning them.
There is always a way.
Double Naught Spy
New member
And what they don't report.
Canada with it's strict gun laws still has mass shootings, they just are not reported here.
They do have them, but not as many. I understand they are not reported in the US as much, but we all have google.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Canada
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/01/30/canada-mass-shootings_n_14498292.html
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/12/30/10_of_the_worst_mass_murders_in_canada.html
They apparently don't have too many years where there is more than one.
Supposedly more people are killed by hammers and baseball bats than guns. No outcry for banning them.
You have your data points wrong. More people are killed by hammers and baseball bats than are killed with rifles. These numbers are in the hundreds. People killed with "guns" is well over 10K.
You can't. You cannot legislate morality. We can pass laws to hold people accountable for there actions but by definitions, criminals do not follow laws. That does not mean we do not attempt to pass laws or put systems in place to try and prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands. We just need to realize we can never achieve 100% effectiveness. Anyone that thinks more laws, goverment regulations and control will make them safer and happier needs to think long and hard about it.
"Be carfull what you ask for because you just might get it"
Any gun laws or regulations put in place only address symptoms and never address root causation.
"Be carfull what you ask for because you just might get it"
Any gun laws or regulations put in place only address symptoms and never address root causation.
TheGunGeek
New member
"Assuming the article is actually accurate, what actions (if any) could prevent someone with no criminal record from acquiring a weapon to use in carrying out an attack?"
While living in a free society that respects liberty and the Constitution? Absolutely nothing, living in complete safety is just an illusion, and this is a trade-off we make for our liberty. Unfortunately, the media and some politicians seem to forget this every time someone acts in an evil manner.
This is why we choose to have a CCW, just in case the rare & worst happens.
While living in a free society that respects liberty and the Constitution? Absolutely nothing, living in complete safety is just an illusion, and this is a trade-off we make for our liberty. Unfortunately, the media and some politicians seem to forget this every time someone acts in an evil manner.
This is why we choose to have a CCW, just in case the rare & worst happens.
Last edited:
Ohio Guy wrote:
A shopper armed with a Shield or PPS won't be much of a match for a suicidal attacker with a rifle and body armor.
Correct.
Someone who is clever, has the resources to acquire whet he/she needs, has the patience to develop proficiency and the discipline to adequately reconnoiter the target, plan the attack and an effective exit strategy to abort and successfully withdraw if circumstances change unexpectedly and has no expectation of surviving the event is essentially detectable and unstoppable.
The fact we might be inside the chain link fence when the next Las Vegas shooter opens up on us is the price we, as a society, collectively pay for maximizing the liberty granted to the society as a whole.
Still, that's no reason to abandon our liberties. And its not any reason for CCW holders to stop carrying. After all, the likelihood is that what a CCW holder is going to encounter is a mugger just looking for some money to get high.
But, if a CCW does find himself in a situation like movie theater in Aurora, Colorado or the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, well, then, when he pulls out that Glock or Shield and starts shooting, he's going to attract all the attention of the guy with the AR and that's going to improve the chances for everyone else to make their escape.
The anti-gun gang will use any excuse to justify the disarmament and ultimately the mass executions of the "right wing enemies of the people." It has worked elsewhere and they have no doubt that it will work again if they can only publicize (or create) enough turmoil and anti-gun sentiment to justify what they want to do. Let's not forget that a standard practice of anti-democratic movements has been to gain power by exploiting or creating threats to the public safety. Anyone in a research mode can look up "Reichstag fire" for an excellent example.
Jim
Jim
The simple answer is that you cannot punish people for crimes they have not committed. Aside from the extremely mentally disabled, there is no possible way you could ethically restrict somebody's freedoms who has no criminal history.
As far as the terrorist thing goes, we all already know the end of this story. For somebody who is sitting at home developing plans to murder multiple people, laws are a speed bump, not a road block. Weapons are always available. If firearms are too hard to come by, rental commercial vehicles, explosives, poisons, etc are always good as backups.
And finally on the issue of U.S. Gun violence, I've always shaken my head at the one HUGE fact that nobody seems to ever connect the dots on. Approximately 2/3 of all of the gun related deaths in the U.S. are suicides. The suicide rate in the U.S. is not significantly higher than other countries with restrictive guns laws. There are countries with extremely restrictive guns laws that have 2x the suicide rate of the U.S. However, in these countries, because firearms are less available, people tend to use other methods (hanging, railroad tracks, jumping). What we can conclude from this is that people who want to kill themselves will find a way to do it, and the availability of firearms is not a significant factor. So if you cut the suicides and only focus on the homicides, the realistic number is about 3.5/100,000 people. I'm going to go out on a limb and say based on my experience as an LEO that gang and drug related violence make up a large chunk of those incidents, but even if we take that number alone, you're still 3x more likely to die in a car accident than be shot to death. Don't even get me started on cancer and heart related deaths in comparison.
So back to the original question: We don't, we can't, and we shouldn't attempt to make major changes that restrict the freedom of every citizen based on isolated incidents with no rhyme or reason. Tragedies will occur. It's part of being a human in civilization. My best advice to somebody who wanted to protect themselves against the threats in the world? Take care of your body and your mind. Encourage those around you to follow suit. Buy a car with good crash test ratings. Lock your home and vehicle doors. Don't use unnecessary drugs. Don't affiliate with gangs. Don't commit crime. Restrict any affiliations you have with those who do. And finally, develop the abilities necessary to protect yourself from immediate physical threats.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
As far as the terrorist thing goes, we all already know the end of this story. For somebody who is sitting at home developing plans to murder multiple people, laws are a speed bump, not a road block. Weapons are always available. If firearms are too hard to come by, rental commercial vehicles, explosives, poisons, etc are always good as backups.
And finally on the issue of U.S. Gun violence, I've always shaken my head at the one HUGE fact that nobody seems to ever connect the dots on. Approximately 2/3 of all of the gun related deaths in the U.S. are suicides. The suicide rate in the U.S. is not significantly higher than other countries with restrictive guns laws. There are countries with extremely restrictive guns laws that have 2x the suicide rate of the U.S. However, in these countries, because firearms are less available, people tend to use other methods (hanging, railroad tracks, jumping). What we can conclude from this is that people who want to kill themselves will find a way to do it, and the availability of firearms is not a significant factor. So if you cut the suicides and only focus on the homicides, the realistic number is about 3.5/100,000 people. I'm going to go out on a limb and say based on my experience as an LEO that gang and drug related violence make up a large chunk of those incidents, but even if we take that number alone, you're still 3x more likely to die in a car accident than be shot to death. Don't even get me started on cancer and heart related deaths in comparison.
So back to the original question: We don't, we can't, and we shouldn't attempt to make major changes that restrict the freedom of every citizen based on isolated incidents with no rhyme or reason. Tragedies will occur. It's part of being a human in civilization. My best advice to somebody who wanted to protect themselves against the threats in the world? Take care of your body and your mind. Encourage those around you to follow suit. Buy a car with good crash test ratings. Lock your home and vehicle doors. Don't use unnecessary drugs. Don't affiliate with gangs. Don't commit crime. Restrict any affiliations you have with those who do. And finally, develop the abilities necessary to protect yourself from immediate physical threats.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I fail to see and don't agree with a constant trend among some posters that they are useless in critical situations. Oh, dear - I stand no chance. I can't handle more than one attacker. I can't hit a target in another area if he or she is armored.
You are just great PR for those who argue against the armed citizen. Thank you for that.
No one is arguing for some suicidal, stand up in front of the attacker, screaming your battle cry. But for God's sake, maybe you could learn how to be useful and not so defeatist.
You are just great PR for those who argue against the armed citizen. Thank you for that.
No one is arguing for some suicidal, stand up in front of the attacker, screaming your battle cry. But for God's sake, maybe you could learn how to be useful and not so defeatist.
TheGunGeek
New member
Agreed, evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
Even if a CCW carrier is ultimately unsuccessful, the person has likely bought additional time for a police response and saved some in the process.
Even if a CCW carrier is ultimately unsuccessful, the person has likely bought additional time for a police response and saved some in the process.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
That argument has been made in some manner for law enforcement. There was significant push back on police getting ARs as they were intimidating and portrayed an air of militarization not appropriate for police.
In the abstract, if we were all nice people, we wouldn't need guns except for sports and shooting birdies. What else is new?
In the abstract, if we were all nice people, we wouldn't need guns except for sports and shooting birdies. What else is new?
A free society is always going to contain some degree of risk that a particular individual may decide to take advantage of his/her freedom to choose to do criminal, evil acts in it. Hardly news.
One of the purposes of such videos produced by terrorists is to create terror, uncertainty and fear in the hearts of the people it wishes to victimize. Why let them be successful? Stirring someone gullible and stupid to follow their propaganda is an extra "bonus", from their perspective.
Personally, I'm more concerned about the potential for some licensed or unlicensed motorist to do something reckless or stupid with a vehicle that causes a serious accident on some roadway where I'm driving. Slipping on wet pavement is a much more immediate concern, too.
One of the purposes of such videos produced by terrorists is to create terror, uncertainty and fear in the hearts of the people it wishes to victimize. Why let them be successful? Stirring someone gullible and stupid to follow their propaganda is an extra "bonus", from their perspective.
Personally, I'm more concerned about the potential for some licensed or unlicensed motorist to do something reckless or stupid with a vehicle that causes a serious accident on some roadway where I'm driving. Slipping on wet pavement is a much more immediate concern, too.
The problem is that this is precisely the approach that the anti-gun crowd wishes to take.The simple answer is that you cannot punish people for crimes they have not committed. Aside from the extremely mentally disabled, there is no possible way you could ethically restrict somebody's freedoms who has no criminal history.
They praise other governments which "punish people for crimes they have not committed" by "restricting their freedoms" even though they have "no criminal history". In fact, this strategy is the foundation of "gun control legislation" where laws are passed to restrict the rights and freedoms of the law-abiding in a futile attempt to prevent future crime.