Im ready to curb gun murders. Lets work together

[Brain357]

Ding ding ding!

Innocent people are not killed in droves by gangs. Gangs kill other gangs.

Mass shooters, on the other hand, seek out innocent victims in crowded places like schools, movie theaters, and restaurants.

Yes...they look for Gun Free Zones forced on us by left wing, anti gunners......where the law abiding people are unable to defend themselves.

I guess Liberals forced Gun Shows to be gun free? Why are Gun Shows Gun Free Zones? Almost sounds like an oxymoron.

And how many mass shootings happen at gun shows?

How many are baseball games?

There are armed police at baseball games....mass shooters target gun free zones. Unless they want to try to kill police....then they shoot at police...and die pretty quickly.

There was an armed off duty cop working security in Orlando.

 

[Iceweasel]

Which makes you wonder why law abiding feel they need a gun. They are quite safe.

Ding ding ding!

Innocent people are not killed in droves by gangs. Gangs kill other gangs.

Mass shooters, on the other hand, seek out innocent victims in crowded places like schools, movie theaters, and restaurants.

Ding ding ding. That's why I want a gun when I go out. duh!

Understood. But in the regulation aspect, why focus so hard on gangs, when it is the mentally ill grudge-holders that are causing such carnage among the innocent?

I'm all for restricting the mentally ill. In fact I don't distinguish it much from gangsters. They very likely had a piss poor upbringing too.

Maybe you could quote some research to support that.

LOL. Yeah, right after I prove gravity exists!

 

[Brain357]

Point is we are doing something wrong. Highest incarceration rate and far from lowest crime rates.

Maybe so....drug convictions can be looked at...but gun criminals need to be kept in jail for 30 years.

I'm certainly not suggesting letting violent criminals out early.

Then why do you keep posting what you post...you are implying that locking up violent criminals is not the answer, when it is, in fact, the biggest part of the immediate solution to save lives.

I started by agreeing with you they need to be incarcerated. It is the immediate solution. I'm saying we need to do more to not create so many criminals.

Yep....we need to address the biggest driver of crime and poverty....single teenage mothers raising young males without adult male fathers......

So we should give more funding to planned parenthood?

 

[Timmy]

A big concern is young people getting ahold of guns . And idiot 20 year old is going to be a trigger happy asshole.

Street guns are too cheap. Gun registration makes straw purchases harder to do , which drives up black market prices . Hopefully pricing out youngsters looking for a gun.

Gun registration does not make it harder......and the facts and statistics show that your point is innaccurate. It isn't the law abiding 20 year old who isn't carrying a gun because you have to be 21 who is shooting people...it is the 15 year old career gang member carrying a gun they can't legally buy, own or carry who is doing the shooting......and they don't register their guns...they get their guns from their baby mommas, grandmothers, other straw buyers or criminals.

The fact is that it's easy for a gun to fall into illegal hands . So easy that teens are able to get ahold of them. Registration would change that.

People wouldn't do straw purchases if that gun can be traced back to them if used in a crime .

 

[2aguy]

Which makes you wonder why law abiding feel they need a gun. They are quite safe.

Ding ding ding!

Innocent people are not killed in droves by gangs. Gangs kill other gangs.

Mass shooters, on the other hand, seek out innocent victims in crowded places like schools, movie theaters, and restaurants.

Yes...they look for Gun Free Zones forced on us by left wing, anti gunners......where the law abiding people are unable to defend themselves.

Hold your horses. I'm not so anti-gun to want to deny anyone the right to carry......but I'm not so convinced that a civilian would have a great chance to take out a shooter in a crowded, confused mass shooting scenario. Or if there would be more of a chance of people caught in crossfire. Simply having the gun isn't enough; the person needs to be well-trained and practiced.

I'm curious, not looking for a fight..have you looked into mass shootings where law abiding people have had guns? If you do you will find that the number of people injured or killed is much lower than when they have to wait for the police to arrive.....

And keep in mind...no one is saying that an individual has to engage the shooter, we merely state that individual survival is much liklier if you have a gun as opposed to not having a gun...and there are many cases where normal individuals, with little training save lives in these mass shootings...

There are few of them because most public spaces are made into gun free zones for law abiding people...and the mass shooters target these gun free zones....so in most cases, law abiding people with guns aren't on site at the time of the mass shooting...but when they are.....they tend to do better than expected.

Here is one sample...

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Thanks for the info. Without taking on the whole lot right now, one sentence jumped out at me- the one about not necessarily engaging a shooter, simply being armed increases survival chances.

How does that work? How does a gun protect you if you don't engage someone?

If you look at mass shooters, they are not looking for a gun fight. They are looking at killing a large number of people. The Sandy Hook killer looked at his killing like a video game...he wanted to get a really "high score" and planned the attack for at least 2 years......they know this from the evidence they found at his home.....dittos many others who target gun free zones..they have notes and confessions that state this from other mass shooters...

So...a mass shooting starts and you are in the middle of it....the best thing you can do is get away...but if the shooter ends up in your path, and you are unarmed, there is nothing you can do...if you have a gun, you can fire on him...and likely he will either retreat to shoot other people or he will seek cover to engage you.....that gives you time, and more importantly, the police, time to get there to deal with him...

If you want to have a real look at a mass shooting...watch Terror at the Mall...I think that is the title....it is about the muslim attack on the Mall in Kenya...you can see the entire killing spree from video feeds from inside...you can see where armed people would have had a chance to survive against the 3 killers...but died because they were helpless as the killers calmly walked up and executed them.

Also...at the Pulse Nightclub...you had people playing dead all over the nightclub....had they been armed, they could have shot the killer as he reloaded his weapons in the bathroom, or as he walked around killing the wounded....

There are many ways a law abiding gun owner can use a gun to survive that don't include rushing in and engaging the attacker directly...

 

[Iceweasel]

A big concern is young people getting ahold of guns . And idiot 20 year old is going to be a trigger happy asshole.

Street guns are too cheap. Gun registration makes straw purchases harder to do , which drives up black market prices . Hopefully pricing out youngsters looking for a gun.

Gun registration does not make it harder......and the facts and statistics show that your point is innaccurate. It isn't the law abiding 20 year old who isn't carrying a gun because you have to be 21 who is shooting people...it is the 15 year old career gang member carrying a gun they can't legally buy, own or carry who is doing the shooting......and they don't register their guns...they get their guns from their baby mommas, grandmothers, other straw buyers or criminals.

The fact is that it's easy for a gun to fall into illegal hands . So easy that teens are able to get ahold of them. Registration would change that.

People wouldn't do straw purchases if that gun can be traced back to them if used in a crime .

Explain how that would work. A group of thieves smash into a gun store, take the guns and sell them on the street and you expect them to get registered ...how?

 

[Brain357]

Ding ding ding!

Innocent people are not killed in droves by gangs. Gangs kill other gangs.

Mass shooters, on the other hand, seek out innocent victims in crowded places like schools, movie theaters, and restaurants.

Yes...they look for Gun Free Zones forced on us by left wing, anti gunners......where the law abiding people are unable to defend themselves.

Hold your horses. I'm not so anti-gun to want to deny anyone the right to carry......but I'm not so convinced that a civilian would have a great chance to take out a shooter in a crowded, confused mass shooting scenario. Or if there would be more of a chance of people caught in crossfire. Simply having the gun isn't enough; the person needs to be well-trained and practiced.

I'm curious, not looking for a fight..have you looked into mass shootings where law abiding people have had guns? If you do you will find that the number of people injured or killed is much lower than when they have to wait for the police to arrive.....

And keep in mind...no one is saying that an individual has to engage the shooter, we merely state that individual survival is much liklier if you have a gun as opposed to not having a gun...and there are many cases where normal individuals, with little training save lives in these mass shootings...

There are few of them because most public spaces are made into gun free zones for law abiding people...and the mass shooters target these gun free zones....so in most cases, law abiding people with guns aren't on site at the time of the mass shooting...but when they are.....they tend to do better than expected.

Here is one sample...

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Thanks for the info. Without taking on the whole lot right now, one sentence jumped out at me- the one about not necessarily engaging a shooter, simply being armed increases survival chances.

How does that work? How does a gun protect you if you don't engage someone?

If you look at mass shooters, they are not looking for a gun fight. They are looking at killing a large number of people. The Sandy Hook killer looked at his killing like a video game...he wanted to get a really "high score" and planned the attack for at least 2 years......they know this from the evidence they found at his home.....dittos many others who target gun free zones..they have notes and confessions that state this from other mass shooters...

So...a mass shooting starts and you are in the middle of it....the best thing you can do is get away...but if the shooter ends up in your path, and you are unarmed, there is nothing you can do...if you have a gun, you can fire on him...and likely he will either retreat to shoot other people or he will seek cover to engage you.....that gives you time, and more importantly, the police, time to get there to deal with him...

If you want to have a real look at a mass shooting...watch Terror at the Mall...I think that is the title....it is about the muslim attack on the Mall in Kenya...you can see the entire killing spree from video feeds from inside...you can see where armed people would have had a chance to survive against the 3 killers...but died because they were helpless as the killers calmly walked up and executed them.

Also...at the Pulse Nightclub...you had people playing dead all over the nightclub....had they been armed, they could have shot the killer as he reloaded his weapons in the bathroom, or as he walked around killing the wounded....

There are many ways a law abiding gun owner can use a gun to survive that don't include rushing in and engaging the attacker directly...

Lots of armed defenders.

2016 shooting of Dallas police officers - Wikipedia

 

[ricechickie]

Ding ding ding!

Innocent people are not killed in droves by gangs. Gangs kill other gangs.

Mass shooters, on the other hand, seek out innocent victims in crowded places like schools, movie theaters, and restaurants.

Yes...they look for Gun Free Zones forced on us by left wing, anti gunners......where the law abiding people are unable to defend themselves.

Hold your horses. I'm not so anti-gun to want to deny anyone the right to carry......but I'm not so convinced that a civilian would have a great chance to take out a shooter in a crowded, confused mass shooting scenario. Or if there would be more of a chance of people caught in crossfire. Simply having the gun isn't enough; the person needs to be well-trained and practiced.

I'm curious, not looking for a fight..have you looked into mass shootings where law abiding people have had guns? If you do you will find that the number of people injured or killed is much lower than when they have to wait for the police to arrive.....

And keep in mind...no one is saying that an individual has to engage the shooter, we merely state that individual survival is much liklier if you have a gun as opposed to not having a gun...and there are many cases where normal individuals, with little training save lives in these mass shootings...

There are few of them because most public spaces are made into gun free zones for law abiding people...and the mass shooters target these gun free zones....so in most cases, law abiding people with guns aren't on site at the time of the mass shooting...but when they are.....they tend to do better than expected.

Here is one sample...

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Thanks for the info. Without taking on the whole lot right now, one sentence jumped out at me- the one about not necessarily engaging a shooter, simply being armed increases survival chances.

How does that work? How does a gun protect you if you don't engage someone?

If you look at mass shooters, they are not looking for a gun fight. They are looking at killing a large number of people. The Sandy Hook killer looked at his killing like a video game...he wanted to get a really "high score" and planned the attack for at least 2 years......they know this from the evidence they found at his home.....dittos many others who target gun free zones..they have notes and confessions that state this from other mass shooters...

So...a mass shooting starts and you are in the middle of it....the best thing you can do is get away...but if the shooter ends up in your path, and you are unarmed, there is nothing you can do...if you have a gun, you can fire on him...and likely he will either retreat to shoot other people or he will seek cover to engage you.....that gives you time, and more importantly, the police, time to get there to deal with him...

If you want to have a real look at a mass shooting...watch Terror at the Mall...I think that is the title....it is about the muslim attack on the Mall in Kenya...you can see the entire killing spree from video feeds from inside...you can see where armed people would have had a chance to survive against the 3 killers...but died because they were helpless as the killers calmly walked up and executed them.

Also...at the Pulse Nightclub...you had people playing dead all over the nightclub....had they been armed, they could have shot the killer as he reloaded his weapons in the bathroom, or as he walked around killing the wounded....

There are many ways a law abiding gun owner can use a gun to survive that don't include rushing in and engaging the attacker directly...

Ok. You are using "engage" differently than I would. Got it.

 

[2aguy]

A big concern is young people getting ahold of guns . And idiot 20 year old is going to be a trigger happy asshole.

Street guns are too cheap. Gun registration makes straw purchases harder to do , which drives up black market prices . Hopefully pricing out youngsters looking for a gun.

Gun registration does not make it harder......and the facts and statistics show that your point is innaccurate. It isn't the law abiding 20 year old who isn't carrying a gun because you have to be 21 who is shooting people...it is the 15 year old career gang member carrying a gun they can't legally buy, own or carry who is doing the shooting......and they don't register their guns...they get their guns from their baby mommas, grandmothers, other straw buyers or criminals.

The fact is that it's easy for a gun to fall into illegal hands . So easy that teens are able to get ahold of them. Registration would change that.

People wouldn't do straw purchases if that gun can be traced back to them if used in a crime .

Please.....explain the process in how registration keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. The actual, physical process.......

Most criminals cannot buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer...and don't trust private sellers due to the fear they are undercover cops...so they buy their guns from friends and family....or they pay someone to buy the gun for them, or they steal them.....those people who bought the guns legally for criminals then report the guns stolen.....making gun registration pointless....

And criminals buy guns from other criminals.....who cannot legally buy, own or carry the guns they are selling...so those already illegal guns are going to be registered to someone not involved in any of the crimes committed and so registration is worthless in solving crimes....since crime guns are discarded after crimes anyway....

And on top of that...Canada already tried to register guns...and it failed......

What's wrong with a registry?

But gun registries have a number of problems. For one, they don’t solve crimes.

Canada’s experience with a long-gun registry illustrates this. After having spent some two billion dollars, the program was found to be ineffective at solving crimes or keeping people safe.

The State of Maryland has had a similar experience with its ballistic fingerprint records, finding that in fifteen years, only twenty-six cases were aided by the registry, and in those cases, law enforcement already knew which guns were involved.

All of this, of course, is in addition to the major question of how we would register American guns in the first place, considering the hundreds of millions here presently and our porous borders.

What registries do allow is confiscation. The experience in Britain of gun control worsening over time illustrates this. The same is true for Australia. And we’ve seen attempts to do the same thing in New York and California.

And then there’s the more basic question of privacy.

This is a concern that goes broader and deeper than just gun rights. Whether we’re talking about the NSA’s spying on our e-mail and telephone calls or the FBI’s desire to have a door opened for them into iPhones, it is abundantly clear that government wants easy access to our personal lives, in spite of and in contradiction to the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

A gun registry would simply be yet another example of this.

I’m sure that all of these points are a case of preaching to the choir, but as I was told once, even the choir needs to hear a good sermon now and then. In the battles over gun control, we risk letting some things slip through when confronted with a flurry of demands, and it’s up to us to make sure bad ideas are not converted into laws.

 

[2aguy]

Yes...they look for Gun Free Zones forced on us by left wing, anti gunners......where the law abiding people are unable to defend themselves.

Hold your horses. I'm not so anti-gun to want to deny anyone the right to carry......but I'm not so convinced that a civilian would have a great chance to take out a shooter in a crowded, confused mass shooting scenario. Or if there would be more of a chance of people caught in crossfire. Simply having the gun isn't enough; the person needs to be well-trained and practiced.

I'm curious, not looking for a fight..have you looked into mass shootings where law abiding people have had guns? If you do you will find that the number of people injured or killed is much lower than when they have to wait for the police to arrive.....

And keep in mind...no one is saying that an individual has to engage the shooter, we merely state that individual survival is much liklier if you have a gun as opposed to not having a gun...and there are many cases where normal individuals, with little training save lives in these mass shootings...

There are few of them because most public spaces are made into gun free zones for law abiding people...and the mass shooters target these gun free zones....so in most cases, law abiding people with guns aren't on site at the time of the mass shooting...but when they are.....they tend to do better than expected.

Here is one sample...

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Thanks for the info. Without taking on the whole lot right now, one sentence jumped out at me- the one about not necessarily engaging a shooter, simply being armed increases survival chances.

How does that work? How does a gun protect you if you don't engage someone?

If you look at mass shooters, they are not looking for a gun fight. They are looking at killing a large number of people. The Sandy Hook killer looked at his killing like a video game...he wanted to get a really "high score" and planned the attack for at least 2 years......they know this from the evidence they found at his home.....dittos many others who target gun free zones..they have notes and confessions that state this from other mass shooters...

So...a mass shooting starts and you are in the middle of it....the best thing you can do is get away...but if the shooter ends up in your path, and you are unarmed, there is nothing you can do...if you have a gun, you can fire on him...and likely he will either retreat to shoot other people or he will seek cover to engage you.....that gives you time, and more importantly, the police, time to get there to deal with him...

If you want to have a real look at a mass shooting...watch Terror at the Mall...I think that is the title....it is about the muslim attack on the Mall in Kenya...you can see the entire killing spree from video feeds from inside...you can see where armed people would have had a chance to survive against the 3 killers...but died because they were helpless as the killers calmly walked up and executed them.

Also...at the Pulse Nightclub...you had people playing dead all over the nightclub....had they been armed, they could have shot the killer as he reloaded his weapons in the bathroom, or as he walked around killing the wounded....

There are many ways a law abiding gun owner can use a gun to survive that don't include rushing in and engaging the attacker directly...

Lots of armed defenders.

2016 shooting of Dallas police officers - Wikipedia

And thanks for using this example....the law abiding citizens...many of them with AR-15s and openly and cocealed carrying pistols moved out of the way when the shooting started...and let the police engage the attacker...

The gun owners were not shot by the police on accident, they did not go in and engage the attacker like Rambo...they responsibly left the scene and allowed the actual police to do their job...

And the killer was taken out by the police...had he targeted a school..a gun free zone, or a mall...a gun free zone....a lot more people would have been killed.

 

[Brain357]

Ding ding ding!

Innocent people are not killed in droves by gangs. Gangs kill other gangs.

Mass shooters, on the other hand, seek out innocent victims in crowded places like schools, movie theaters, and restaurants.

Yes...they look for Gun Free Zones forced on us by left wing, anti gunners......where the law abiding people are unable to defend themselves.

Hold your horses. I'm not so anti-gun to want to deny anyone the right to carry......but I'm not so convinced that a civilian would have a great chance to take out a shooter in a crowded, confused mass shooting scenario. Or if there would be more of a chance of people caught in crossfire. Simply having the gun isn't enough; the person needs to be well-trained and practiced.

I'm curious, not looking for a fight..have you looked into mass shootings where law abiding people have had guns? If you do you will find that the number of people injured or killed is much lower than when they have to wait for the police to arrive.....

And keep in mind...no one is saying that an individual has to engage the shooter, we merely state that individual survival is much liklier if you have a gun as opposed to not having a gun...and there are many cases where normal individuals, with little training save lives in these mass shootings...

There are few of them because most public spaces are made into gun free zones for law abiding people...and the mass shooters target these gun free zones....so in most cases, law abiding people with guns aren't on site at the time of the mass shooting...but when they are.....they tend to do better than expected.

Here is one sample...

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Thanks for the info. Without taking on the whole lot right now, one sentence jumped out at me- the one about not necessarily engaging a shooter, simply being armed increases survival chances.

How does that work? How does a gun protect you if you don't engage someone?

If you look at mass shooters, they are not looking for a gun fight. They are looking at killing a large number of people. The Sandy Hook killer looked at his killing like a video game...he wanted to get a really "high score" and planned the attack for at least 2 years......they know this from the evidence they found at his home.....dittos many others who target gun free zones..they have notes and confessions that state this from other mass shooters...

So...a mass shooting starts and you are in the middle of it....the best thing you can do is get away...but if the shooter ends up in your path, and you are unarmed, there is nothing you can do...if you have a gun, you can fire on him...and likely he will either retreat to shoot other people or he will seek cover to engage you.....that gives you time, and more importantly, the police, time to get there to deal with him...

If you want to have a real look at a mass shooting...watch Terror at the Mall...I think that is the title....it is about the muslim attack on the Mall in Kenya...you can see the entire killing spree from video feeds from inside...you can see where armed people would have had a chance to survive against the 3 killers...but died because they were helpless as the killers calmly walked up and executed them.

Also...at the Pulse Nightclub...you had people playing dead all over the nightclub....had they been armed, they could have shot the killer as he reloaded his weapons in the bathroom, or as he walked around killing the wounded....

There are many ways a law abiding gun owner can use a gun to survive that don't include rushing in and engaging the attacker directly...

Lots of armed defenders.

Hold your horses. I'm not so anti-gun to want to deny anyone the right to carry......but I'm not so convinced that a civilian would have a great chance to take out a shooter in a crowded, confused mass shooting scenario. Or if there would be more of a chance of people caught in crossfire. Simply having the gun isn't enough; the person needs to be well-trained and practiced.

I'm curious, not looking for a fight..have you looked into mass shootings where law abiding people have had guns? If you do you will find that the number of people injured or killed is much lower than when they have to wait for the police to arrive.....

And keep in mind...no one is saying that an individual has to engage the shooter, we merely state that individual survival is much liklier if you have a gun as opposed to not having a gun...and there are many cases where normal individuals, with little training save lives in these mass shootings...

There are few of them because most public spaces are made into gun free zones for law abiding people...and the mass shooters target these gun free zones....so in most cases, law abiding people with guns aren't on site at the time of the mass shooting...but when they are.....they tend to do better than expected.

Here is one sample...

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Thanks for the info. Without taking on the whole lot right now, one sentence jumped out at me- the one about not necessarily engaging a shooter, simply being armed increases survival chances.

How does that work? How does a gun protect you if you don't engage someone?

If you look at mass shooters, they are not looking for a gun fight. They are looking at killing a large number of people. The Sandy Hook killer looked at his killing like a video game...he wanted to get a really "high score" and planned the attack for at least 2 years......they know this from the evidence they found at his home.....dittos many others who target gun free zones..they have notes and confessions that state this from other mass shooters...

So...a mass shooting starts and you are in the middle of it....the best thing you can do is get away...but if the shooter ends up in your path, and you are unarmed, there is nothing you can do...if you have a gun, you can fire on him...and likely he will either retreat to shoot other people or he will seek cover to engage you.....that gives you time, and more importantly, the police, time to get there to deal with him...

If you want to have a real look at a mass shooting...watch Terror at the Mall...I think that is the title....it is about the muslim attack on the Mall in Kenya...you can see the entire killing spree from video feeds from inside...you can see where armed people would have had a chance to survive against the 3 killers...but died because they were helpless as the killers calmly walked up and executed them.

Also...at the Pulse Nightclub...you had people playing dead all over the nightclub....had they been armed, they could have shot the killer as he reloaded his weapons in the bathroom, or as he walked around killing the wounded....

There are many ways a law abiding gun owner can use a gun to survive that don't include rushing in and engaging the attacker directly...

Lots of armed defenders.

2016 shooting of Dallas police officers - Wikipedia

And thanks for using this example....the law abiding citizens...many of them with AR-15s and openly and cocealed carrying pistols moved out of the way when the shooting started...and let the police engage the attacker...

The gun owners were not shot by the police on accident, they did not go in and engage the attacker like Rambo...they responsibly left the scene and allowed the actual police to do their job...

And the killer was taken out by the police...had he targeted a school..a gun free zone, or a mall...a gun free zone....a lot more people would have been killed.

A lot of police were shot and killed.

 

[2aguy]

A big concern is young people getting ahold of guns . And idiot 20 year old is going to be a trigger happy asshole.

Street guns are too cheap. Gun registration makes straw purchases harder to do , which drives up black market prices . Hopefully pricing out youngsters looking for a gun.

Gun registration does not make it harder......and the facts and statistics show that your point is innaccurate. It isn't the law abiding 20 year old who isn't carrying a gun because you have to be 21 who is shooting people...it is the 15 year old career gang member carrying a gun they can't legally buy, own or carry who is doing the shooting......and they don't register their guns...they get their guns from their baby mommas, grandmothers, other straw buyers or criminals.

The fact is that it's easy for a gun to fall into illegal hands . So easy that teens are able to get ahold of them. Registration would change that.

People wouldn't do straw purchases if that gun can be traced back to them if used in a crime .

Yes...they look for Gun Free Zones forced on us by left wing, anti gunners......where the law abiding people are unable to defend themselves.

I guess Liberals forced Gun Shows to be gun free? Why are Gun Shows Gun Free Zones? Almost sounds like an oxymoron.

And how many mass shootings happen at gun shows?

How many are baseball games?

There are armed police at baseball games....mass shooters target gun free zones. Unless they want to try to kill police....then they shoot at police...and die pretty quickly.

There was an armed off duty cop working security in Orlando.

and he left as soon as he was fired on...to call for help...leaving the shooter alone in a building with over 320 unarmed people...who he then slaughtered...

 

[2aguy]

Yes...they look for Gun Free Zones forced on us by left wing, anti gunners......where the law abiding people are unable to defend themselves.

Hold your horses. I'm not so anti-gun to want to deny anyone the right to carry......but I'm not so convinced that a civilian would have a great chance to take out a shooter in a crowded, confused mass shooting scenario. Or if there would be more of a chance of people caught in crossfire. Simply having the gun isn't enough; the person needs to be well-trained and practiced.

I'm curious, not looking for a fight..have you looked into mass shootings where law abiding people have had guns? If you do you will find that the number of people injured or killed is much lower than when they have to wait for the police to arrive.....

And keep in mind...no one is saying that an individual has to engage the shooter, we merely state that individual survival is much liklier if you have a gun as opposed to not having a gun...and there are many cases where normal individuals, with little training save lives in these mass shootings...

There are few of them because most public spaces are made into gun free zones for law abiding people...and the mass shooters target these gun free zones....so in most cases, law abiding people with guns aren't on site at the time of the mass shooting...but when they are.....they tend to do better than expected.

Here is one sample...

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Thanks for the info. Without taking on the whole lot right now, one sentence jumped out at me- the one about not necessarily engaging a shooter, simply being armed increases survival chances.

How does that work? How does a gun protect you if you don't engage someone?

If you look at mass shooters, they are not looking for a gun fight. They are looking at killing a large number of people. The Sandy Hook killer looked at his killing like a video game...he wanted to get a really "high score" and planned the attack for at least 2 years......they know this from the evidence they found at his home.....dittos many others who target gun free zones..they have notes and confessions that state this from other mass shooters...

So...a mass shooting starts and you are in the middle of it....the best thing you can do is get away...but if the shooter ends up in your path, and you are unarmed, there is nothing you can do...if you have a gun, you can fire on him...and likely he will either retreat to shoot other people or he will seek cover to engage you.....that gives you time, and more importantly, the police, time to get there to deal with him...

If you want to have a real look at a mass shooting...watch Terror at the Mall...I think that is the title....it is about the muslim attack on the Mall in Kenya...you can see the entire killing spree from video feeds from inside...you can see where armed people would have had a chance to survive against the 3 killers...but died because they were helpless as the killers calmly walked up and executed them.

Also...at the Pulse Nightclub...you had people playing dead all over the nightclub....had they been armed, they could have shot the killer as he reloaded his weapons in the bathroom, or as he walked around killing the wounded....

There are many ways a law abiding gun owner can use a gun to survive that don't include rushing in and engaging the attacker directly...

Lots of armed defenders.

I'm curious, not looking for a fight..have you looked into mass shootings where law abiding people have had guns? If you do you will find that the number of people injured or killed is much lower than when they have to wait for the police to arrive.....

And keep in mind...no one is saying that an individual has to engage the shooter, we merely state that individual survival is much liklier if you have a gun as opposed to not having a gun...and there are many cases where normal individuals, with little training save lives in these mass shootings...

There are few of them because most public spaces are made into gun free zones for law abiding people...and the mass shooters target these gun free zones....so in most cases, law abiding people with guns aren't on site at the time of the mass shooting...but when they are.....they tend to do better than expected.

Here is one sample...

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Thanks for the info. Without taking on the whole lot right now, one sentence jumped out at me- the one about not necessarily engaging a shooter, simply being armed increases survival chances.

How does that work? How does a gun protect you if you don't engage someone?

If you look at mass shooters, they are not looking for a gun fight. They are looking at killing a large number of people. The Sandy Hook killer looked at his killing like a video game...he wanted to get a really "high score" and planned the attack for at least 2 years......they know this from the evidence they found at his home.....dittos many others who target gun free zones..they have notes and confessions that state this from other mass shooters...

So...a mass shooting starts and you are in the middle of it....the best thing you can do is get away...but if the shooter ends up in your path, and you are unarmed, there is nothing you can do...if you have a gun, you can fire on him...and likely he will either retreat to shoot other people or he will seek cover to engage you.....that gives you time, and more importantly, the police, time to get there to deal with him...

If you want to have a real look at a mass shooting...watch Terror at the Mall...I think that is the title....it is about the muslim attack on the Mall in Kenya...you can see the entire killing spree from video feeds from inside...you can see where armed people would have had a chance to survive against the 3 killers...but died because they were helpless as the killers calmly walked up and executed them.

Also...at the Pulse Nightclub...you had people playing dead all over the nightclub....had they been armed, they could have shot the killer as he reloaded his weapons in the bathroom, or as he walked around killing the wounded....

There are many ways a law abiding gun owner can use a gun to survive that don't include rushing in and engaging the attacker directly...

Lots of armed defenders.

2016 shooting of Dallas police officers - Wikipedia

And thanks for using this example....the law abiding citizens...many of them with AR-15s and openly and cocealed carrying pistols moved out of the way when the shooting started...and let the police engage the attacker...

The gun owners were not shot by the police on accident, they did not go in and engage the attacker like Rambo...they responsibly left the scene and allowed the actual police to do their job...

And the killer was taken out by the police...had he targeted a school..a gun free zone, or a mall...a gun free zone....a lot more people would have been killed.

A lot of police were shot and killed.

Yeah....and? The then used their guns to corner the killer...had he attacked unarmed people there would have been more casualties.....never attack police.....they have guns.

 

[Brain357]

A big concern is young people getting ahold of guns . And idiot 20 year old is going to be a trigger happy asshole.

Street guns are too cheap. Gun registration makes straw purchases harder to do , which drives up black market prices . Hopefully pricing out youngsters looking for a gun.

Gun registration does not make it harder......and the facts and statistics show that your point is innaccurate. It isn't the law abiding 20 year old who isn't carrying a gun because you have to be 21 who is shooting people...it is the 15 year old career gang member carrying a gun they can't legally buy, own or carry who is doing the shooting......and they don't register their guns...they get their guns from their baby mommas, grandmothers, other straw buyers or criminals.

The fact is that it's easy for a gun to fall into illegal hands . So easy that teens are able to get ahold of them. Registration would change that.

People wouldn't do straw purchases if that gun can be traced back to them if used in a crime .

I guess Liberals forced Gun Shows to be gun free? Why are Gun Shows Gun Free Zones? Almost sounds like an oxymoron.

And how many mass shootings happen at gun shows?

How many are baseball games?

There are armed police at baseball games....mass shooters target gun free zones. Unless they want to try to kill police....then they shoot at police...and die pretty quickly.

There was an armed off duty cop working security in Orlando.

and he left as soon as he was fired on...to call for help...leaving the shooter alone in a building with over 320 unarmed people...who he then slaughtered...

Yes he was outgunned because we allow legal ownership of mass killing guns. You think drunk individuals would have done better? How do they tell the bad guy from other gun carriers?

 

[2aguy]

Yes...they look for Gun Free Zones forced on us by left wing, anti gunners......where the law abiding people are unable to defend themselves.

Hold your horses. I'm not so anti-gun to want to deny anyone the right to carry......but I'm not so convinced that a civilian would have a great chance to take out a shooter in a crowded, confused mass shooting scenario. Or if there would be more of a chance of people caught in crossfire. Simply having the gun isn't enough; the person needs to be well-trained and practiced.

I'm curious, not looking for a fight..have you looked into mass shootings where law abiding people have had guns? If you do you will find that the number of people injured or killed is much lower than when they have to wait for the police to arrive.....

And keep in mind...no one is saying that an individual has to engage the shooter, we merely state that individual survival is much liklier if you have a gun as opposed to not having a gun...and there are many cases where normal individuals, with little training save lives in these mass shootings...

There are few of them because most public spaces are made into gun free zones for law abiding people...and the mass shooters target these gun free zones....so in most cases, law abiding people with guns aren't on site at the time of the mass shooting...but when they are.....they tend to do better than expected.

Here is one sample...

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Thanks for the info. Without taking on the whole lot right now, one sentence jumped out at me- the one about not necessarily engaging a shooter, simply being armed increases survival chances.

How does that work? How does a gun protect you if you don't engage someone?

If you look at mass shooters, they are not looking for a gun fight. They are looking at killing a large number of people. The Sandy Hook killer looked at his killing like a video game...he wanted to get a really "high score" and planned the attack for at least 2 years......they know this from the evidence they found at his home.....dittos many others who target gun free zones..they have notes and confessions that state this from other mass shooters...

So...a mass shooting starts and you are in the middle of it....the best thing you can do is get away...but if the shooter ends up in your path, and you are unarmed, there is nothing you can do...if you have a gun, you can fire on him...and likely he will either retreat to shoot other people or he will seek cover to engage you.....that gives you time, and more importantly, the police, time to get there to deal with him...

If you want to have a real look at a mass shooting...watch Terror at the Mall...I think that is the title....it is about the muslim attack on the Mall in Kenya...you can see the entire killing spree from video feeds from inside...you can see where armed people would have had a chance to survive against the 3 killers...but died because they were helpless as the killers calmly walked up and executed them.

Also...at the Pulse Nightclub...you had people playing dead all over the nightclub....had they been armed, they could have shot the killer as he reloaded his weapons in the bathroom, or as he walked around killing the wounded....

There are many ways a law abiding gun owner can use a gun to survive that don't include rushing in and engaging the attacker directly...

Lots of armed defenders.

I'm curious, not looking for a fight..have you looked into mass shootings where law abiding people have had guns? If you do you will find that the number of people injured or killed is much lower than when they have to wait for the police to arrive.....

And keep in mind...no one is saying that an individual has to engage the shooter, we merely state that individual survival is much liklier if you have a gun as opposed to not having a gun...and there are many cases where normal individuals, with little training save lives in these mass shootings...

There are few of them because most public spaces are made into gun free zones for law abiding people...and the mass shooters target these gun free zones....so in most cases, law abiding people with guns aren't on site at the time of the mass shooting...but when they are.....they tend to do better than expected.

Here is one sample...

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Thanks for the info. Without taking on the whole lot right now, one sentence jumped out at me- the one about not necessarily engaging a shooter, simply being armed increases survival chances.

How does that work? How does a gun protect you if you don't engage someone?

If you look at mass shooters, they are not looking for a gun fight. They are looking at killing a large number of people. The Sandy Hook killer looked at his killing like a video game...he wanted to get a really "high score" and planned the attack for at least 2 years......they know this from the evidence they found at his home.....dittos many others who target gun free zones..they have notes and confessions that state this from other mass shooters...

So...a mass shooting starts and you are in the middle of it....the best thing you can do is get away...but if the shooter ends up in your path, and you are unarmed, there is nothing you can do...if you have a gun, you can fire on him...and likely he will either retreat to shoot other people or he will seek cover to engage you.....that gives you time, and more importantly, the police, time to get there to deal with him...

If you want to have a real look at a mass shooting...watch Terror at the Mall...I think that is the title....it is about the muslim attack on the Mall in Kenya...you can see the entire killing spree from video feeds from inside...you can see where armed people would have had a chance to survive against the 3 killers...but died because they were helpless as the killers calmly walked up and executed them.

Also...at the Pulse Nightclub...you had people playing dead all over the nightclub....had they been armed, they could have shot the killer as he reloaded his weapons in the bathroom, or as he walked around killing the wounded....

There are many ways a law abiding gun owner can use a gun to survive that don't include rushing in and engaging the attacker directly...

Lots of armed defenders.

2016 shooting of Dallas police officers - Wikipedia

And thanks for using this example....the law abiding citizens...many of them with AR-15s and openly and cocealed carrying pistols moved out of the way when the shooting started...and let the police engage the attacker...

The gun owners were not shot by the police on accident, they did not go in and engage the attacker like Rambo...they responsibly left the scene and allowed the actual police to do their job...

And the killer was taken out by the police...had he targeted a school..a gun free zone, or a mall...a gun free zone....a lot more people would have been killed.

A lot of police were shot and killed.

And if he had used a Truck....? The Nice, Paris muslim used a truck and killed 89 people and injured 435.......Dallas, 5 officers killed and 9 injured, and he was contained fairly quickly....

 

[Brain357]

Hold your horses. I'm not so anti-gun to want to deny anyone the right to carry......but I'm not so convinced that a civilian would have a great chance to take out a shooter in a crowded, confused mass shooting scenario. Or if there would be more of a chance of people caught in crossfire. Simply having the gun isn't enough; the person needs to be well-trained and practiced.

I'm curious, not looking for a fight..have you looked into mass shootings where law abiding people have had guns? If you do you will find that the number of people injured or killed is much lower than when they have to wait for the police to arrive.....

And keep in mind...no one is saying that an individual has to engage the shooter, we merely state that individual survival is much liklier if you have a gun as opposed to not having a gun...and there are many cases where normal individuals, with little training save lives in these mass shootings...

There are few of them because most public spaces are made into gun free zones for law abiding people...and the mass shooters target these gun free zones....so in most cases, law abiding people with guns aren't on site at the time of the mass shooting...but when they are.....they tend to do better than expected.

Here is one sample...

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Thanks for the info. Without taking on the whole lot right now, one sentence jumped out at me- the one about not necessarily engaging a shooter, simply being armed increases survival chances.

How does that work? How does a gun protect you if you don't engage someone?

If you look at mass shooters, they are not looking for a gun fight. They are looking at killing a large number of people. The Sandy Hook killer looked at his killing like a video game...he wanted to get a really "high score" and planned the attack for at least 2 years......they know this from the evidence they found at his home.....dittos many others who target gun free zones..they have notes and confessions that state this from other mass shooters...

So...a mass shooting starts and you are in the middle of it....the best thing you can do is get away...but if the shooter ends up in your path, and you are unarmed, there is nothing you can do...if you have a gun, you can fire on him...and likely he will either retreat to shoot other people or he will seek cover to engage you.....that gives you time, and more importantly, the police, time to get there to deal with him...

If you want to have a real look at a mass shooting...watch Terror at the Mall...I think that is the title....it is about the muslim attack on the Mall in Kenya...you can see the entire killing spree from video feeds from inside...you can see where armed people would have had a chance to survive against the 3 killers...but died because they were helpless as the killers calmly walked up and executed them.

Also...at the Pulse Nightclub...you had people playing dead all over the nightclub....had they been armed, they could have shot the killer as he reloaded his weapons in the bathroom, or as he walked around killing the wounded....

There are many ways a law abiding gun owner can use a gun to survive that don't include rushing in and engaging the attacker directly...

Lots of armed defenders.

Thanks for the info. Without taking on the whole lot right now, one sentence jumped out at me- the one about not necessarily engaging a shooter, simply being armed increases survival chances.

How does that work? How does a gun protect you if you don't engage someone?

If you look at mass shooters, they are not looking for a gun fight. They are looking at killing a large number of people. The Sandy Hook killer looked at his killing like a video game...he wanted to get a really "high score" and planned the attack for at least 2 years......they know this from the evidence they found at his home.....dittos many others who target gun free zones..they have notes and confessions that state this from other mass shooters...

So...a mass shooting starts and you are in the middle of it....the best thing you can do is get away...but if the shooter ends up in your path, and you are unarmed, there is nothing you can do...if you have a gun, you can fire on him...and likely he will either retreat to shoot other people or he will seek cover to engage you.....that gives you time, and more importantly, the police, time to get there to deal with him...

If you want to have a real look at a mass shooting...watch Terror at the Mall...I think that is the title....it is about the muslim attack on the Mall in Kenya...you can see the entire killing spree from video feeds from inside...you can see where armed people would have had a chance to survive against the 3 killers...but died because they were helpless as the killers calmly walked up and executed them.

Also...at the Pulse Nightclub...you had people playing dead all over the nightclub....had they been armed, they could have shot the killer as he reloaded his weapons in the bathroom, or as he walked around killing the wounded....

There are many ways a law abiding gun owner can use a gun to survive that don't include rushing in and engaging the attacker directly...

Lots of armed defenders.

2016 shooting of Dallas police officers - Wikipedia

And thanks for using this example....the law abiding citizens...many of them with AR-15s and openly and cocealed carrying pistols moved out of the way when the shooting started...and let the police engage the attacker...

The gun owners were not shot by the police on accident, they did not go in and engage the attacker like Rambo...they responsibly left the scene and allowed the actual police to do their job...

And the killer was taken out by the police...had he targeted a school..a gun free zone, or a mall...a gun free zone....a lot more people would have been killed.

A lot of police were shot and killed.

Yeah....and? The then used their guns to corner the killer...had he attacked unarmed people there would have been more casualties.....never attack police.....they have guns.

Many armed defenders did not stop a mass shooting.

 

[2aguy]

A big concern is young people getting ahold of guns . And idiot 20 year old is going to be a trigger happy asshole.

Street guns are too cheap. Gun registration makes straw purchases harder to do , which drives up black market prices . Hopefully pricing out youngsters looking for a gun.

Gun registration does not make it harder......and the facts and statistics show that your point is innaccurate. It isn't the law abiding 20 year old who isn't carrying a gun because you have to be 21 who is shooting people...it is the 15 year old career gang member carrying a gun they can't legally buy, own or carry who is doing the shooting......and they don't register their guns...they get their guns from their baby mommas, grandmothers, other straw buyers or criminals.

The fact is that it's easy for a gun to fall into illegal hands . So easy that teens are able to get ahold of them. Registration would change that.

People wouldn't do straw purchases if that gun can be traced back to them if used in a crime .

And how many mass shootings happen at gun shows?

How many are baseball games?

There are armed police at baseball games....mass shooters target gun free zones. Unless they want to try to kill police....then they shoot at police...and die pretty quickly.

There was an armed off duty cop working security in Orlando.

and he left as soon as he was fired on...to call for help...leaving the shooter alone in a building with over 320 unarmed people...who he then slaughtered...

Yes he was outgunned because we allow legal ownership of mass killing guns. You think drunk individuals would have done better? How do they tell the bad guy from other gun carriers?

No.....the guy targeted a gun free zone.

The rifle he used......in mass shootings has been used to kill 167 people....in 35 years.......an average of 4 people a year.....

Some mass killing weapon....

Knives kill over 1,500 every single year.........that is the real killer...

 

[2aguy]

I'm curious, not looking for a fight..have you looked into mass shootings where law abiding people have had guns? If you do you will find that the number of people injured or killed is much lower than when they have to wait for the police to arrive.....

And keep in mind...no one is saying that an individual has to engage the shooter, we merely state that individual survival is much liklier if you have a gun as opposed to not having a gun...and there are many cases where normal individuals, with little training save lives in these mass shootings...

There are few of them because most public spaces are made into gun free zones for law abiding people...and the mass shooters target these gun free zones....so in most cases, law abiding people with guns aren't on site at the time of the mass shooting...but when they are.....they tend to do better than expected.

Here is one sample...

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Thanks for the info. Without taking on the whole lot right now, one sentence jumped out at me- the one about not necessarily engaging a shooter, simply being armed increases survival chances.

How does that work? How does a gun protect you if you don't engage someone?

If you look at mass shooters, they are not looking for a gun fight. They are looking at killing a large number of people. The Sandy Hook killer looked at his killing like a video game...he wanted to get a really "high score" and planned the attack for at least 2 years......they know this from the evidence they found at his home.....dittos many others who target gun free zones..they have notes and confessions that state this from other mass shooters...

So...a mass shooting starts and you are in the middle of it....the best thing you can do is get away...but if the shooter ends up in your path, and you are unarmed, there is nothing you can do...if you have a gun, you can fire on him...and likely he will either retreat to shoot other people or he will seek cover to engage you.....that gives you time, and more importantly, the police, time to get there to deal with him...

If you want to have a real look at a mass shooting...watch Terror at the Mall...I think that is the title....it is about the muslim attack on the Mall in Kenya...you can see the entire killing spree from video feeds from inside...you can see where armed people would have had a chance to survive against the 3 killers...but died because they were helpless as the killers calmly walked up and executed them.

Also...at the Pulse Nightclub...you had people playing dead all over the nightclub....had they been armed, they could have shot the killer as he reloaded his weapons in the bathroom, or as he walked around killing the wounded....

There are many ways a law abiding gun owner can use a gun to survive that don't include rushing in and engaging the attacker directly...

Lots of armed defenders.

If you look at mass shooters, they are not looking for a gun fight. They are looking at killing a large number of people. The Sandy Hook killer looked at his killing like a video game...he wanted to get a really "high score" and planned the attack for at least 2 years......they know this from the evidence they found at his home.....dittos many others who target gun free zones..they have notes and confessions that state this from other mass shooters...

So...a mass shooting starts and you are in the middle of it....the best thing you can do is get away...but if the shooter ends up in your path, and you are unarmed, there is nothing you can do...if you have a gun, you can fire on him...and likely he will either retreat to shoot other people or he will seek cover to engage you.....that gives you time, and more importantly, the police, time to get there to deal with him...

If you want to have a real look at a mass shooting...watch Terror at the Mall...I think that is the title....it is about the muslim attack on the Mall in Kenya...you can see the entire killing spree from video feeds from inside...you can see where armed people would have had a chance to survive against the 3 killers...but died because they were helpless as the killers calmly walked up and executed them.

Also...at the Pulse Nightclub...you had people playing dead all over the nightclub....had they been armed, they could have shot the killer as he reloaded his weapons in the bathroom, or as he walked around killing the wounded....

There are many ways a law abiding gun owner can use a gun to survive that don't include rushing in and engaging the attacker directly...

Lots of armed defenders.

2016 shooting of Dallas police officers - Wikipedia

And thanks for using this example....the law abiding citizens...many of them with AR-15s and openly and cocealed carrying pistols moved out of the way when the shooting started...and let the police engage the attacker...

The gun owners were not shot by the police on accident, they did not go in and engage the attacker like Rambo...they responsibly left the scene and allowed the actual police to do their job...

And the killer was taken out by the police...had he targeted a school..a gun free zone, or a mall...a gun free zone....a lot more people would have been killed.

A lot of police were shot and killed.

Yeah....and? The then used their guns to corner the killer...had he attacked unarmed people there would have been more casualties.....never attack police.....they have guns.

Many armed defenders did not stop a mass shooting.

Not really....since most if not all mass shootings happen in gun free zones, which means most of them happen where no one but the killer has a gun.

I showed just church shootings and the lives saved by actual armed citizens.

 

[Brain357]

Thanks for the info. Without taking on the whole lot right now, one sentence jumped out at me- the one about not necessarily engaging a shooter, simply being armed increases survival chances.

How does that work? How does a gun protect you if you don't engage someone?

If you look at mass shooters, they are not looking for a gun fight. They are looking at killing a large number of people. The Sandy Hook killer looked at his killing like a video game...he wanted to get a really "high score" and planned the attack for at least 2 years......they know this from the evidence they found at his home.....dittos many others who target gun free zones..they have notes and confessions that state this from other mass shooters...

So...a mass shooting starts and you are in the middle of it....the best thing you can do is get away...but if the shooter ends up in your path, and you are unarmed, there is nothing you can do...if you have a gun, you can fire on him...and likely he will either retreat to shoot other people or he will seek cover to engage you.....that gives you time, and more importantly, the police, time to get there to deal with him...

If you want to have a real look at a mass shooting...watch Terror at the Mall...I think that is the title....it is about the muslim attack on the Mall in Kenya...you can see the entire killing spree from video feeds from inside...you can see where armed people would have had a chance to survive against the 3 killers...but died because they were helpless as the killers calmly walked up and executed them.

Also...at the Pulse Nightclub...you had people playing dead all over the nightclub....had they been armed, they could have shot the killer as he reloaded his weapons in the bathroom, or as he walked around killing the wounded....

There are many ways a law abiding gun owner can use a gun to survive that don't include rushing in and engaging the attacker directly...

Lots of armed defenders.

Lots of armed defenders.

2016 shooting of Dallas police officers - Wikipedia

And thanks for using this example....the law abiding citizens...many of them with AR-15s and openly and cocealed carrying pistols moved out of the way when the shooting started...and let the police engage the attacker...

The gun owners were not shot by the police on accident, they did not go in and engage the attacker like Rambo...they responsibly left the scene and allowed the actual police to do their job...

And the killer was taken out by the police...had he targeted a school..a gun free zone, or a mall...a gun free zone....a lot more people would have been killed.

A lot of police were shot and killed.

Yeah....and? The then used their guns to corner the killer...had he attacked unarmed people there would have been more casualties.....never attack police.....they have guns.

Many armed defenders did not stop a mass shooting.

Not really....since most if not all mass shootings happen in gun free zones, which means most of them happen where no one but the killer has a gun.

I showed just church shootings and the lives saved by actual armed citizens.

I just gave two examples that were not gun free...

 

[Brain357]

Thanks for the info. Without taking on the whole lot right now, one sentence jumped out at me- the one about not necessarily engaging a shooter, simply being armed increases survival chances.

How does that work? How does a gun protect you if you don't engage someone?

If you look at mass shooters, they are not looking for a gun fight. They are looking at killing a large number of people. The Sandy Hook killer looked at his killing like a video game...he wanted to get a really "high score" and planned the attack for at least 2 years......they know this from the evidence they found at his home.....dittos many others who target gun free zones..they have notes and confessions that state this from other mass shooters...

So...a mass shooting starts and you are in the middle of it....the best thing you can do is get away...but if the shooter ends up in your path, and you are unarmed, there is nothing you can do...if you have a gun, you can fire on him...and likely he will either retreat to shoot other people or he will seek cover to engage you.....that gives you time, and more importantly, the police, time to get there to deal with him...

If you want to have a real look at a mass shooting...watch Terror at the Mall...I think that is the title....it is about the muslim attack on the Mall in Kenya...you can see the entire killing spree from video feeds from inside...you can see where armed people would have had a chance to survive against the 3 killers...but died because they were helpless as the killers calmly walked up and executed them.

Also...at the Pulse Nightclub...you had people playing dead all over the nightclub....had they been armed, they could have shot the killer as he reloaded his weapons in the bathroom, or as he walked around killing the wounded....

There are many ways a law abiding gun owner can use a gun to survive that don't include rushing in and engaging the attacker directly...

Lots of armed defenders.

Lots of armed defenders.

2016 shooting of Dallas police officers - Wikipedia

And thanks for using this example....the law abiding citizens...many of them with AR-15s and openly and cocealed carrying pistols moved out of the way when the shooting started...and let the police engage the attacker...

The gun owners were not shot by the police on accident, they did not go in and engage the attacker like Rambo...they responsibly left the scene and allowed the actual police to do their job...

And the killer was taken out by the police...had he targeted a school..a gun free zone, or a mall...a gun free zone....a lot more people would have been killed.

A lot of police were shot and killed.

Yeah....and? The then used their guns to corner the killer...had he attacked unarmed people there would have been more casualties.....never attack police.....they have guns.

Many armed defenders did not stop a mass shooting.

Not really....since most if not all mass shootings happen in gun free zones, which means most of them happen where no one but the killer has a gun.

I showed just church shootings and the lives saved by actual armed citizens.

You cherry pick examples.