Plenty of "Good Guys with Guns" But 6 Injured Anyway

[Brain357]

He fired 50 rounds and killed 2 people? lol Ok, so he had a Ruger .22 rifle with a large magazine. I doubt those would be included in a future ban. They weren't banned in the '94 legislation.

Ah only two people. You have no value of life? The point of the example is that he was stopped while reloading. You prefer more people are killed before he is stopped?

Here is another:
Long Island Railroad Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have shown 2 valid examples of a shooter being subdued when he was reloading. And apparently they were the only 2 over a period of 20 years.

And you showed one example of more than 10 rounds being used to defend someone's home.

Here is another:
Kip Kinkel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What VALID example of someone using more than 10 rounds for defense have you seen?

 

[Brain357]

Ok, there you have an example of the defensive use of more than 10 rounds.

I haven't said using more than 10 rounds, I have said needing more than 10 rounds. No mention of intruder even being armed and you think he needed 15 shots? If that were the case he needs to go to the range. But regardless, as I posted in my link, witnesses say 4-5 shots.

And the shooter said 15. Unfortunately that particular event had very little press, so I could not find how many times the intruder was shot.

If someone breaks into someone's home and gets killed I have little sympathy for them.

I don't have sympathy for him either, but 15 shots for an unarmed intruder? Please. We are arguing if a hi cap magazine is ever NEEDED. This was not a case of need. And witnesses say 4-5 shots.

 

[WinterBorn]

The kid who shot up the high school, firing 50 rounds and killing 2 people, should never have been out on his own. He was mentally ill. His classmates knew it, his parents knew it, and the psychologists who evaluated him likely knew it.

from: Kip Kinkel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Kinkel's parents enrolled him in anger management and had him evaluated by psychologists. Shortly before his murder, Kinkel's father confided to a friend that he was "terrified" and had run out of options to help his son."

 

[WinterBorn]

Ah only two people. You have no value of life? The point of the example is that he was stopped while reloading. You prefer more people are killed before he is stopped?

Here is another:
Long Island Railroad Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have shown 2 valid examples of a shooter being subdued when he was reloading. And apparently they were the only 2 over a period of 20 years.

And you showed one example of more than 10 rounds being used to defend someone's home.

Here is another:
Kip Kinkel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What VALID example of someone using more than 10 rounds for defense have you seen?

This is not another. Kip Kinkel is the kid who shot up Thurston High school. You have already posted that shooting. This is the kid who fire 50 rounds and killed 2 people.

I was also known to be mentally unbalanced by his parents and his classmates. He should have never been on the loose.

 

[WinterBorn]

I haven't said using more than 10 rounds, I have said needing more than 10 rounds. No mention of intruder even being armed and you think he needed 15 shots? If that were the case he needs to go to the range. But regardless, as I posted in my link, witnesses say 4-5 shots.

And the shooter said 15. Unfortunately that particular event had very little press, so I could not find how many times the intruder was shot.

If someone breaks into someone's home and gets killed I have little sympathy for them.

I don't have sympathy for him either, but 15 shots for an unarmed intruder? Please. We are arguing if a hi cap magazine is ever NEEDED. This was not a case of need. And witnesses say 4-5 shots.

And unfortunately I could find no documented evidence of how many rounds were fired. The witnesses were not sure. The homeowner said he fired 15.

Based on the link with the stress testing the cops, if the best score the LAPD had in a stressful situation was 40%, then the homeowner only hit the kid 6 times. If the homeowner was more like the low score for the NYPD (no mention of training for the homeowner) he hit at around 17% which is 2.55 hits. Since we have no information on why the kid was in the house or what he was doing, the homeowner wins.

 

[Brain357]

You have shown 2 valid examples of a shooter being subdued when he was reloading. And apparently they were the only 2 over a period of 20 years.

And you showed one example of more than 10 rounds being used to defend someone's home.

Here is another:
Kip Kinkel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What VALID example of someone using more than 10 rounds for defense have you seen?

This is not another. Kip Kinkel is the kid who shot up Thurston High school. You have already posted that shooting. This is the kid who fire 50 rounds and killed 2 people.

I was also known to be mentally unbalanced by his parents and his classmates. He should have never been on the loose.

Oops.

This is interesting:
Gun Control And Mass Shootings: Would Lives Be Saved? | True Cost - Analyzing our economy, government policy, and society through the lens of cost-benefit

 

[Brain357]

And the shooter said 15. Unfortunately that particular event had very little press, so I could not find how many times the intruder was shot.

If someone breaks into someone's home and gets killed I have little sympathy for them.

I don't have sympathy for him either, but 15 shots for an unarmed intruder? Please. We are arguing if a hi cap magazine is ever NEEDED. This was not a case of need. And witnesses say 4-5 shots.

And unfortunately I could find no documented evidence of how many rounds were fired. The witnesses were not sure. The homeowner said he fired 15.

Based on the link with the stress testing the cops, if the best score the LAPD had in a stressful situation was 40%, then the homeowner only hit the kid 6 times. If the homeowner was more like the low score for the NYPD (no mention of training for the homeowner) he hit at around 17% which is 2.55 hits. Since we have no information on why the kid was in the house or what he was doing, the homeowner wins.

Witnesses said 4-5. And again, there is no need to fire 15 times at an unarmed intruder.

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't have sympathy for him either, but 15 shots for an unarmed intruder? Please. We are arguing if a hi cap magazine is ever NEEDED. This was not a case of need. And witnesses say 4-5 shots.

And unfortunately I could find no documented evidence of how many rounds were fired. The witnesses were not sure. The homeowner said he fired 15.

Based on the link with the stress testing the cops, if the best score the LAPD had in a stressful situation was 40%, then the homeowner only hit the kid 6 times. If the homeowner was more like the low score for the NYPD (no mention of training for the homeowner) he hit at around 17% which is 2.55 hits. Since we have no information on why the kid was in the house or what he was doing, the homeowner wins.

Witnesses said 4-5. And again, there is no need to fire 15 times at an unarmed intruder.

And you make that determination based on what? I saw nothing that stated that the homeowner stood over the dead body and continued to shoot. The intruder could have been moving, which when added to the already documented evidence that stressful situations reduce hits, could account for numerous misses. Neither of us know what happened in that house that night. All we actually know is that the kid was in a house where he did not live and was not known, the homeowner shot him multiple times, and the kid died. Witnesses said 4-5 shots. Which was it? 4 or 5? The homeowner stated he shot 15 times. Without evidence you have no way of knowing whether the 15 shots were needed or not.

Also, it seems that the homeowner was male. But it says nothing about his age or physical size/abilities. If it was an 80 year old man, the intruder could have killed him easily in a physical confrontation. If the man felt he needed 15 rounds, you have no basis on which to claim otherwise.

 

[WinterBorn]

Here is another:
Kip Kinkel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What VALID example of someone using more than 10 rounds for defense have you seen?

This is not another. Kip Kinkel is the kid who shot up Thurston High school. You have already posted that shooting. This is the kid who fire 50 rounds and killed 2 people.

I was also known to be mentally unbalanced by his parents and his classmates. He should have never been on the loose.

Oops.

This is interesting:
Gun Control And Mass Shootings: Would Lives Be Saved? | True Cost - Analyzing our economy, government policy, and society through the lens of cost-benefit

Interesting analysis. But it still hinges on the same thing your argument does, that reloading would absolutely have saved lives. Unless there is a malfunction of the weapon or the shooter makes mistakes, it would not appear so.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't have sympathy for him either, but 15 shots for an unarmed intruder? Please. We are arguing if a hi cap magazine is ever NEEDED. This was not a case of need. And witnesses say 4-5 shots.

And unfortunately I could find no documented evidence of how many rounds were fired. The witnesses were not sure. The homeowner said he fired 15.

Based on the link with the stress testing the cops, if the best score the LAPD had in a stressful situation was 40%, then the homeowner only hit the kid 6 times. If the homeowner was more like the low score for the NYPD (no mention of training for the homeowner) he hit at around 17% which is 2.55 hits. Since we have no information on why the kid was in the house or what he was doing, the homeowner wins.

Witnesses said 4-5. And again, there is no need to fire 15 times at an unarmed intruder.

How many do you need to fire at an armed intruder?

 

[Brain357]

And unfortunately I could find no documented evidence of how many rounds were fired. The witnesses were not sure. The homeowner said he fired 15.

Based on the link with the stress testing the cops, if the best score the LAPD had in a stressful situation was 40%, then the homeowner only hit the kid 6 times. If the homeowner was more like the low score for the NYPD (no mention of training for the homeowner) he hit at around 17% which is 2.55 hits. Since we have no information on why the kid was in the house or what he was doing, the homeowner wins.

Witnesses said 4-5. And again, there is no need to fire 15 times at an unarmed intruder.

And you make that determination based on what? I saw nothing that stated that the homeowner stood over the dead body and continued to shoot. The intruder could have been moving, which when added to the already documented evidence that stressful situations reduce hits, could account for numerous misses. Neither of us know what happened in that house that night. All we actually know is that the kid was in a house where he did not live and was not known, the homeowner shot him multiple times, and the kid died. Witnesses said 4-5 shots. Which was it? 4 or 5? The homeowner stated he shot 15 times. Without evidence you have no way of knowing whether the 15 shots were needed or not.

Also, it seems that the homeowner was male. But it says nothing about his age or physical size/abilities. If it was an 80 year old man, the intruder could have killed him easily in a physical confrontation. If the man felt he needed 15 rounds, you have no basis on which to claim otherwise.

Actually if your going to insist on what he said as correct then he didn't miss:
CALLER: “I just put 15 rounds in him.”
OPERATOR: “You just did what?”
If that is the case then the guy went down with the first shot and he unloaded the magazine in him. Again, no NEED to fire 15 times.

I think this is the important part of what you wrote: "Without evidence you have no way of knowing whether the 15 shots were needed or not."
This disqualifies this example, as you admit we don't know. I would tend to believe the witnesses who were not in a stressful situation and say 4-5 shots. I realize you're extremely desperate for an example, but this just isn't it.

 

[Brain357]

And unfortunately I could find no documented evidence of how many rounds were fired. The witnesses were not sure. The homeowner said he fired 15.

Based on the link with the stress testing the cops, if the best score the LAPD had in a stressful situation was 40%, then the homeowner only hit the kid 6 times. If the homeowner was more like the low score for the NYPD (no mention of training for the homeowner) he hit at around 17% which is 2.55 hits. Since we have no information on why the kid was in the house or what he was doing, the homeowner wins.

Witnesses said 4-5. And again, there is no need to fire 15 times at an unarmed intruder.

How many do you need to fire at an armed intruder?

According to the study twice on average.

 

[Brain357]

This is not another. Kip Kinkel is the kid who shot up Thurston High school. You have already posted that shooting. This is the kid who fire 50 rounds and killed 2 people.

I was also known to be mentally unbalanced by his parents and his classmates. He should have never been on the loose.

Oops.

This is interesting:
Gun Control And Mass Shootings: Would Lives Be Saved? | True Cost - Analyzing our economy, government policy, and society through the lens of cost-benefit

Interesting analysis. But it still hinges on the same thing your argument does, that reloading would absolutely have saved lives. Unless there is a malfunction of the weapon or the shooter makes mistakes, it would not appear so.

Those mistakes would happen a lot more if he has to reload more often. You can't deny that, it's just science. And as you've already admitted, mistakes do happen. So it would save lives.

 

[DiamondDave]

Oops.

This is interesting:
Gun Control And Mass Shootings: Would Lives Be Saved? | True Cost - Analyzing our economy, government policy, and society through the lens of cost-benefit

Interesting analysis. But it still hinges on the same thing your argument does, that reloading would absolutely have saved lives. Unless there is a malfunction of the weapon or the shooter makes mistakes, it would not appear so.

Those mistakes would happen a lot more if he has to reload more often. You can't deny that, it's just science. And as you've already admitted, mistakes do happen. So it would save lives.

Ehhh.. wrong answer.. you want to ASSUME it to be true.. because it fits your agenda

Perhaps you should watch how fast a reload of a magazine can happen

I know I know.. you want only revolvers.. or black powder rifles... and then will complain that if there were no firearms, it would be even less...

Idiotic gun control nuts

 

[WinterBorn]

Witnesses said 4-5. And again, there is no need to fire 15 times at an unarmed intruder.

And you make that determination based on what? I saw nothing that stated that the homeowner stood over the dead body and continued to shoot. The intruder could have been moving, which when added to the already documented evidence that stressful situations reduce hits, could account for numerous misses. Neither of us know what happened in that house that night. All we actually know is that the kid was in a house where he did not live and was not known, the homeowner shot him multiple times, and the kid died. Witnesses said 4-5 shots. Which was it? 4 or 5? The homeowner stated he shot 15 times. Without evidence you have no way of knowing whether the 15 shots were needed or not.

Also, it seems that the homeowner was male. But it says nothing about his age or physical size/abilities. If it was an 80 year old man, the intruder could have killed him easily in a physical confrontation. If the man felt he needed 15 rounds, you have no basis on which to claim otherwise.

Actually if your going to insist on what he said as correct then he didn't miss:
CALLER: “I just put 15 rounds in him.”
OPERATOR: “You just did what?”
If that is the case then the guy went down with the first shot and he unloaded the magazine in him. Again, no NEED to fire 15 times.

I think this is the important part of what you wrote: "Without evidence you have no way of knowing whether the 15 shots were needed or not."
This disqualifies this example, as you admit we don't know. I would tend to believe the witnesses who were not in a stressful situation and say 4-5 shots. I realize you're extremely desperate for an example, but this just isn't it.

I am not desperate at all. But you did post the same mass shooting twice in the hopes it would be "another" one that was stopped while reloading.

And how do you know he went down? How do you know he was hit 15 times?

The idea that you can, with so little information, try to make a judgement about a situation in which a home intruder is shot, baffles me. I am sure it seems very logical while your are sitting at your computer in the light of day. But things are certainly different if a stranger breaks into your home at night.

 

[WinterBorn]

Witnesses said 4-5. And again, there is no need to fire 15 times at an unarmed intruder.

How many do you need to fire at an armed intruder?

According to the study twice on average.

"According to the study twice on average"

 

[zeke]

Brian, a gun nut can and will deny anything and everything that doesn't reflect well on massive amounts of guns and ammo in the hands of most everyone that wants them.

It's like the high capacity magazines. They are not needed. But they are available. If they are available that means the bad guys have them, if the bad guys have them then the good guys MUST have them to.

This is just the nature of an arms war. And that's what we got here. We got assault rifles, they got assault rifles. They have body armor, gun nuts have body armor.

Gun nuts armed to the teeth to protect themselves from some criminal types also armed to the teeth.

Seems like it would be best to just accept that, as more and more people arm themselves there will be more and more children accidentally shot, more suicide by gun, more domestic violence by gun etc etc.

These "causalities of war" must be accepted so that the gun nutters can feel safe and secure in their fortresses. I mean homes.

There is a war going on out there in all the gun nutters fantasy camps. And ONLY more armed people can stop it.

Free fire zone. Go.

 

[Brain357]

Interesting analysis. But it still hinges on the same thing your argument does, that reloading would absolutely have saved lives. Unless there is a malfunction of the weapon or the shooter makes mistakes, it would not appear so.

Those mistakes would happen a lot more if he has to reload more often. You can't deny that, it's just science. And as you've already admitted, mistakes do happen. So it would save lives.

Ehhh.. wrong answer.. you want to ASSUME it to be true.. because it fits your agenda

Perhaps you should watch how fast a reload of a magazine can happen

I know I know.. you want only revolvers.. or black powder rifles... and then will complain that if there were no firearms, it would be even less...

Idiotic gun control nuts

I have already posted 3 real examples of mass shooters being stopped at reload. It DOES happen. I've also posted a video of a guy taking quite a few seconds to reload. It does happen.

 

[DiamondDave]

Those mistakes would happen a lot more if he has to reload more often. You can't deny that, it's just science. And as you've already admitted, mistakes do happen. So it would save lives.

Ehhh.. wrong answer.. you want to ASSUME it to be true.. because it fits your agenda

Perhaps you should watch how fast a reload of a magazine can happen

I know I know.. you want only revolvers.. or black powder rifles... and then will complain that if there were no firearms, it would be even less...

Idiotic gun control nuts

I have already posted 3 real examples of mass shooters being stopped at reload. It DOES happen. I've also posted a video of a guy taking quite a few seconds to reload. It does happen.

Just as you can be stopped while scanning and looking in a different direction.. your correlation means nothing... your conclusion is complete horse shit... those of us actually trained in firearms use have a bit more insight

 

[Brain357]

And you make that determination based on what? I saw nothing that stated that the homeowner stood over the dead body and continued to shoot. The intruder could have been moving, which when added to the already documented evidence that stressful situations reduce hits, could account for numerous misses. Neither of us know what happened in that house that night. All we actually know is that the kid was in a house where he did not live and was not known, the homeowner shot him multiple times, and the kid died. Witnesses said 4-5 shots. Which was it? 4 or 5? The homeowner stated he shot 15 times. Without evidence you have no way of knowing whether the 15 shots were needed or not.

Also, it seems that the homeowner was male. But it says nothing about his age or physical size/abilities. If it was an 80 year old man, the intruder could have killed him easily in a physical confrontation. If the man felt he needed 15 rounds, you have no basis on which to claim otherwise.

Actually if your going to insist on what he said as correct then he didn't miss:
CALLER: “I just put 15 rounds in him.”
OPERATOR: “You just did what?”
If that is the case then the guy went down with the first shot and he unloaded the magazine in him. Again, no NEED to fire 15 times.

I think this is the important part of what you wrote: "Without evidence you have no way of knowing whether the 15 shots were needed or not."
This disqualifies this example, as you admit we don't know. I would tend to believe the witnesses who were not in a stressful situation and say 4-5 shots. I realize you're extremely desperate for an example, but this just isn't it.

I am not desperate at all. But you did post the same mass shooting twice in the hopes it would be "another" one that was stopped while reloading.

And how do you know he went down? How do you know he was hit 15 times?

The idea that you can, with so little information, try to make a judgement about a situation in which a home intruder is shot, baffles me. I am sure it seems very logical while your are sitting at your computer in the light of day. But things are certainly different if a stranger breaks into your home at night.

So your trying to have it both ways again? Your going to insist on counting it because he says he put 15 rounds in him. Even though witnesses say 4-5 shots. But you're not going to believe then that he hit him 15 times, even though he said put 15 rounds IN him. Sorry but you've already admitted we don't know what happened. It is disqualified. As you state, with so little information. Without more information this one is disqualified. Sorry.