Wasn't Anyone In That Nightclub Armed? Not One With A Gun?

[FA_Q2]

The notion that an armed citizen – carrying a concealed firearm for his personal protection – would ‘leap into action’ and ‘save the day’ by shooting the attacker is childish, naïve, and unrealistic.

And yet it happens.

 

[FA_Q2]

Funny how:

People gun shot up and killed with gun control = gun control doesn't work.
People get shot up and killed without gun control = we need more guns.

Woossshhhhhh!

Obviously gun control worked and nothing happened. The problem is you insist on believing what you are fed by the captive media.

You know I'm right because you're reading it on an internet blog, right?

Well clearly guns didn't work either....

What, exactly, have I been fed by the media? Oh, wait, no, you're just attacking me rather than discussing the issue.

Here's the deal.

There was a mass shooting in Paris by quite a few guys, 130 died. There's one in Florida where potentially 50 have died at the hands of, what looks like at the moment, one guy.

The difference?

The difference is that the French murder rate is about 1.0 and the US murder rate is about 4.0, and 3/4 of all murders in the US happen with guns.

There's your difference. Oh, that and France didn't go to war in Iraq and still got attacked, whereas the US was most responsible for the invasion of Iraq and got hit.

Gun control is not the cause of the lower homicide rate in France.

Gun control before and after statistics shows that it has almost zero net impact on such things - or at least not enough to make a definitive answer that it helps.

 

[FA_Q2]

The notion that an armed citizen – carrying a concealed firearm for his personal protection – would ‘leap into action’ and ‘save the day’ by shooting the attacker is childish, naïve, and unrealistic.

^^^^ fails as composition fallacy

Wrong.

Obviously you have no idea what a composition fallacy is.

Private citizens have no training or experience with regard to an active shooter in a public venue – the notion of a private citizen ‘saving the day’ is a moronic fantasy, devoid of evidence or merit.

And anyone who would attempt to be a ‘hero’ would end up killing innocent bystanders, not the shooter.

Your asinine assumption based on utterly false conjecture.

 

[defcon4]

The notion that an armed citizen – carrying a concealed firearm for his personal protection – would ‘leap into action’ and ‘save the day’ by shooting the attacker is childish, naïve, and unrealistic.

^^^^ fails as composition fallacy

Wrong.

Obviously you have no idea what a composition fallacy is.

Private citizens have no training or experience with regard to an active shooter in a public venue – the notion of a private citizen ‘saving the day’ is a moronic fantasy, devoid of evidence or merit.

And anyone who would attempt to be a ‘hero’ would end up killing innocent bystanders, not the shooter.

^^^^^fails as composition fallacy

 

[frigidweirdo]

Funny how:

People gun shot up and killed with gun control = gun control doesn't work.
People get shot up and killed without gun control = we need more guns.

Woossshhhhhh!

Obviously gun control worked and nothing happened. The problem is you insist on believing what you are fed by the captive media.

You know I'm right because you're reading it on an internet blog, right?

Well clearly guns didn't work either....

What, exactly, have I been fed by the media? Oh, wait, no, you're just attacking me rather than discussing the issue.

Here's the deal.

There was a mass shooting in Paris by quite a few guys, 130 died. There's one in Florida where potentially 50 have died at the hands of, what looks like at the moment, one guy.

The difference?

The difference is that the French murder rate is about 1.0 and the US murder rate is about 4.0, and 3/4 of all murders in the US happen with guns.

There's your difference. Oh, that and France didn't go to war in Iraq and still got attacked, whereas the US was most responsible for the invasion of Iraq and got hit.

Gun control is not the cause of the lower homicide rate in France.

Gun control before and after statistics shows that it has almost zero net impact on such things - or at least not enough to make a definitive answer that it helps.

Are you sure about that?


This is a complex issue, but certainly gun control has an impact. What we can't do is look at statistics and say "look, gun control did this", why? Because gun control doesn't live apart from all the other things in the world.

Australia's murder rate. It's gone down steadily since stricter gun controls were introduced.

We could look at the UK, but that would be a waste of time, since the Dunblaine laws were introduced crime may have gone up or down, but guns weren't that available anyway.

What we do know is that there are only three cities over 250,000 in the USA with a lower murder rate than Canada's, and only one city with a murder rate lower than most of western Europe.

Why is this? The US evolved out of England, it has many similar things, like innocent until proven guilty. What went wrong in the US to make it have a murder rate that's 4 times higher than the UK's, and also with 3/4 of murders with guns?

 

[MikeK]

People take as little stuff as they can to night clubs, you only end up losing the stuff anyway.

Unfortunately that's a habit that came about under more peaceful circumstances but needs to be changed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

People take as little stuff as they can to night clubs, you only end up losing the stuff anyway.

Unfortunately that's a habit that came about under more peaceful circumstances but needs to be changed.

Will it? Do you think people will go clubbing if they think they need to take body armor with them?

 

[MikeK]

Also, having drunk people with guns isn't the best idea in the world.

That's true to some extent, but you'd be surprised at how well behaved people are when everybody knows that everybody else is armed. When I lived in Brooklyn I sometimes went to a bar near the 78 Precinct (Brooklyn South HQ) which was packed with off-duty cops. Occasional arguments, even a fistfight now and then, but never a shooting incident.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Also, having drunk people with guns isn't the best idea in the world.

That's true to some extent, but you'd be surprised at how well behaved people are when everybody knows that everybody else is armed. When I lived in Brooklyn I sometimes went to a bar near the 78 Precinct (Brooklyn South HQ) which was packed with off-duty cops. Occasional arguments, even a fistfight now and then, but never a shooting incident.

But then again it only takes one crazy who doesn't care about his or her life.

 

[MikeK]

Armed Israelis are active duty. Not a bunch of untrained civilians.

Armed Israeli civilians are trained -- as all armed American civilians should be. And the need for training is becoming more and more apparent.

 

[MikeK]

The notion that an armed citizen – carrying a concealed firearm for his personal protection – would ‘leap into action’ and ‘save the day’ by shooting the attacker is childish, naïve, and unrealistic.

Why? What do you base that conclusion on?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

People take as little stuff as they can to night clubs, you only end up losing the stuff anyway.

Unfortunately that's a habit that came about under more peaceful circumstances but needs to be changed.

Nonsense.

It doesn’t ‘need to be changed.’

Citizens have the right to carry concealed firearms pursuant to the right of self-defense if they so desire.

But the notion that every citizen should go about carrying firearms to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ is as delusional as it is pathetic.

 

[MikeK]

Will it? Do you think people will go clubbing if they think they need to take body armor with them?

Who's talking about body armor?

This is a .22 magnum derringer with a wallet holster. It fits in a hip pocket just like a wallet and is totally invisible. It only holds two shots, which is a hell of a lot better than no shots. And a .22 magnum hollow point round is a nasty little bone-gouging bullet which at close range will either put someone down or stun him sufficiently to get hold of him.

It's not a military-grade weapon but, again, it's a hell of a lot better than no weapon.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Will it? Do you think people will go clubbing if they think they need to take body armor with them?

Who's talking about body armor?

This is a .22 magnum derringer with a wallet holster. It fits in a hip pocket just like a wallet and is totally invisible. It only holds two shots, which is a hell of a lot better than no shots. And a .22 magnum hollow point round is a nasty little bone-gouging bullet which at close range will either put someone down or stun him sufficiently to get hold of him.

It's not a military-grade weapon but, again, it's a hell of a lot better than no weapon.

I'm talking about body armor. If someone just opens up, how long is it going to take you to get your gun? How long is it going to take for that bullet to go down the barrel and fly through the air and hit you?

Think about it.

 

[MikeK]

But then again it only takes one crazy who doesn't care about his or her life.

Which is true with regard to anything and everything but in the end is an empty statement.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But then again it only takes one crazy who doesn't care about his or her life.

Which is true with regard to anything and everything but in the end is an empty statement.

Well, it's true, but not an empty statement. We know crazies with guns are far more effective killing machines with guns than without them, don't we?

 

[MikeK]

I'm talking about body armor. If someone just opens up, how long is it going to take you to get your gun? How long is it going to take for that bullet to go down the barrel and fly through the air and hit you?

Think about it.

Think about this:

You may rest assured that during that shooting incident there must have been numerous occasions when someone was close enough to that shooter, as the shooter was aiming away or changing magazines, to drop one right behind his ear. It's just too bad that none of these hypothetical individuals didn't have a gun in his pocket, or on his ankle, or wherever.

 

[MikeK]

Well, it's true, but not an empty statement. We know crazies with guns are far more effective killing machines with guns than without them, don't we?

Do we?

How do we know that?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Would you go dancing with a gun? Seems like an odd idea to me.

Can you imagine the questions during a slow dance? You packin heat or are you just excited to see me....

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm talking about body armor. If someone just opens up, how long is it going to take you to get your gun? How long is it going to take for that bullet to go down the barrel and fly through the air and hit you?

Think about it.

Think about this:

You may rest assured that during that shooting incident there must have been numerous occasions when someone was close enough to that shooter, as the shooter was aiming away or changing magazines, to drop one right behind his ear. It's just too bad that none of these hypothetical individuals didn't have a gun in his pocket, or on his ankle, or wherever.

Think about it this way, if the guy hadn't have had a gun, the security at the club would have dealt with it after the first person he punched, had he had a knife maybe one or two people injured or dead.