Guns and 2nd Amendment continued: open carry backlash?

[Swordfish]

6 hours ago, BloodRider said:

Good Lord you say that a lot! 

Pretty much every time i don't understand something.  That's generally how civil conversations go.  

I think what is telling is that you find this to somehow be a negative.

 

Quote

Once again, claiming ignorance is not an effective argument,

It wasn't an argument at all.  it was a statement.

 

Quote

nor does it absolve you from your sarcastic take on domestic violence shootings.

i don't understand why you think I am looking for absolution.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Here's an incident where firearms made a sitiation much much worse on both sides:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/us/pennsylvania-ciara-meyer-shooting-father-charged/index.html

Had the officer not been armed, had Ciara Meyer's father not been armed she would be alive today.  I still support the well regulated right to keep and bear arms but this was just stupid, on both sides.

[baxus]

How can a father be charged with killing his daughter if she was shot by a police officer?

I mean, he should be charged with attacking a police officer and/or attempted murder and/or whatever, but for killing his daughter?

Once again, I'm no expert when it comes to law, US law in particular, but it seems a bit unreasonable.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

31 minutes ago, baxus said:

How can a father be charged with killing his daughter if she was shot by a police officer?

I mean, he should be charged with attacking a police officer and/or attempted murder and/or whatever, but for killing his daughter?

Once again, I'm no expert when it comes to law, US law in particular, but it seems a bit unreasonable.

It's called the "felony murder" rule. Basically, if you commit certain types of inherently dangerous crimes, and someone is killed as a result of your actions, you can be charged with a type of homicide as if you had killed them, even if you weren't the one who technically did the killing. The idea is that if you undertake certain inherently dangerous crimes, you're responsible if those inherently dangerous actions result in the loss of someone else's life. 

[BloodRider]

I have a feeling we are going to see this law invoked a bunch very soon.  Say in Oregon.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Here's an incident where firearms made a sitiation much much worse on both sides:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/us/pennsylvania-ciara-meyer-shooting-father-charged/index.html

Had the officer not been armed, had Ciara Meyer's father not been armed she would be alive today.  I still support the well regulated right to keep and bear arms but this was just stupid, on both sides.

Well Scot, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve here.

Unless someone claimed that a gun is a magical implement that is guaranteed to solve every problem and resolve every possible situation beneficially, without fail, then all you are doing is cherrypicking examples where a gun was associated with a tragic turn of events. I can do the same with every object imaginable, from a stick of candyfloss to an airplane.

Examples of incidents where guns saved lives, on the other hand, seem to be conspicously absent from your fevered Googling efforts.

 

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Examples of incidents where guns saved lives, on the other hand, seem to be conspicously absent from your fevered Googling efforts.

 

Would you be so kind as to provide us with an example where an armed civilian stopped a shooting spree?

[Tywin et al.]

5 hours ago, baxus said:

How can a father be charged with killing his daughter if she was shot by a police officer?

You don't get it. Here in American, the professional police officer has far less accountability than ordinary citizens.

(this comment is not about this example, just a general statement)

[BloodRider]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Would you be so kind as to provide us with an example where an armed civilian stopped a shooting spree?

How can he!  There aren't enough people with guns out there.  If only we had more guns he would be able to give us tons of examples.

[Free Northman Reborn]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Would you be so kind as to provide us with an example where an armed civilian stopped a shooting spree?

Why a shooting spree specifically?

Why not any situation where an armed civilian used a gun for a positive outcome? Because that would be the equivalent of Scot's example where the use of a gun resulted in a bad outcome.

[Swordfish]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Would you be so kind as to provide us with an example where an armed civilian stopped a shooting spree?

it takes literally five seconds to google this.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=armed+civilian+stops+shooter&oq=armed+civilian+stops+shooter&aqs=chrome..69i57.7439j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

 

Though I'm not sure trading anecdotes really adds much to the conversation.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Thanks for that Swordfish.

Here is the most convenient link from your list, which nicely recounts 12 instances in the last 20 years or so where privately owned firearms stopped mass shootings.

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

Interestingly from that list, in many of the cases the mass shooter was held at gunpoint until police arrived, thus not resulting in a defensive shooting at all. One wonders how many thousands of personal defense gun uses are of a similar nature, thus not resulting in a defensive shooting, but with the gun merely being pointed defensively to discourage further attack. Such incidents will never make it into the shooting statistics of the FBI, and therefore be lost in the debate on defensive gun uses versus criminal shootings.

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Thanks for that Swordfish.

Here is the most convenient link from your list, which nicely recounts 12 instances in the last 20 years or so where privately owned firearms stopped mass shootings. Interestingly from that list, in many of the cases the mass shooter was held at gunpoint until police arrived, thus not resulting in a defensive shooting at all.

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

One wonders how many thousands of personal defense gun uses are of a similar nature, thus not resulting in a defensive shooting, but with the gun merely being pointed defensively to discourage further attack. Such incidents will never make it into the shooting statistics of the FBI, and therefore be lost in the debate on defensive gun uses versus criminal shootings.

Estimates vary widely, it's a very hard thing to track,  but there seems to be widespread agreement that defense incidences involving a gun occur more than 100k times a year.

[Tywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Why a shooting spree specifically?

Why not any situation where an armed civilian used a gun for a positive outcome? Because that would be the equivalent of Scot's example where the use of a gun resulted in a bad outcome.

Because there are numerous examples of civilians using a firearm in self defense in an appropriate and inappropriate manner, as well as just being plain dumb around firearms.

Trading examples of these is pointless.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Because there are numerous examples of civilians using a firearm in self defense in an appropriate and inappropriate manner, as well as just being plain dumb around firearms.

Trading examples of these is pointless.

Which is the point of my post to Scot where I criticize his example of some guy using his gun in a dumb way leading to the death of a family member.

[Tywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

it takes literally five seconds to google this.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=armed+civilian+stops+shooter&oq=armed+civilian+stops+shooter&aqs=chrome..69i57.7439j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

 

Though I'm not sure trading anecdotes really adds much to the conversation.

Thanks! i've asked for this numerous times.

FNR,

12 in 20 years? That doesn't bulster the argument that more guns stop mass shootings than more gun laws.

[Swordfish]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

12 in 20 years? That doesn't bulster the argument that more guns stop mass shootings than more gun laws.

This is so sadly and utterly predictable.  I would have bet my entire retirement that this is where you were going with this.

These are examples, this is not a statistical study.

This makes the point you think it makes no more so than me asking you to provide examples of where a gun law stopped a mass shooting would prove anything.

 

 

[Tywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

This is so sadly and utterly predictable.  I would have bet my entire retirement that this is where you were going with this.

These are examples, this is not a statistical study.

This makes the point you think it makes no more so than me asking you to provide examples of where a gun law stopped a mass shooting would prove anything.

 

 

12 in 20 years is not strong evidence that armed civilians are good at stopping shooting spress when one factors in how many shooting spress have happened in those 20 years.

[Free Northman Reborn]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

12 in 20 years is not strong evidence that armed civilians are good at stopping shooting spress when one factors in how many shooting spress have happened in those 20 years.

As I pointed out in some previous incarnation of this thread, that is a flawed deduction, unless you know the ratio of mass shootings at which armed civilians were present. If no civilian had a gun in the majority of the shootings, how could that be used in support of the argument that arming civilians is not effective at stopping mass shootings?

And even if there was one armed civilian at a shooting, I could easily point out that if there had been 2 armed civilians, their chances of stopping the shooter would have increased. Or 3, or 4 or 10 armed civilians for that matter.

Your argument in this case is weak, and vulnerable to countering in a number of ways.

[Swordfish]

2 minutes ago, Leap said:

He's not saying it is, and I'm guessing his reply to this is going to be ''I haven't said that. You asked for an anecdote and I gave one''. 

Source?

Once again, my source is google:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+times+are+guns+used+in+self+defense+in+the+US&oq=how+many+times+are+guns+used+in+self+defense+in+the+US&aqs=chrome..69i57.7687j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8