@enoch

The problem with the gun control debate is that both options are authoritarian. Which do you prefer, the government having the power to limit your access to guns, or individuals having the power to easily end your life at will? It's a lose/lose proposition from that POV.

After a gun enthusiast massacred 35 people in Australia in 1996, the government got serious about gun reform. They enacted strict gun control measures and gun homicides dropped 59% over the course of 10 years. In the decade before gun reform, they suffered 11 gun rampages; they have not suffered another gun rampage since.

In your opinion, what is the downside of only police and military having weapons? (for the sake of argument, let's assume that hunting weapons remain legal, because their main function is not to end human life.)

Source:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws

@SDGundamX
This video is intended to sway people's opinions through faulty empirical results. Thankfully, intellectuals in this thread are noting those flaws.

We know concealed carry weapons sometimes save lives, as discussed above. "The rampage was ended because one person could defend himself from the cowardly nutjob. You will not see the real story in the mainstream media."


Legislation limiting firepower? Probably a fair idea. Trying to ban self-defense by responsible people, but not ban weapons used by violent criminals? Harder to make that case.

No, He un- jammed his gun, we know this because he shot himself with it . He could have continued the rampage after he cleared the jam, but he fled because there was a guy 20 feet away that had him in the crosshairs.
Why do you insist that I'm making this up? There are many eyewitneses. Where is your proof that it happened any other way?

Sounds like the rampage ended when his gun jammed. The CC was fortunate. Right place, right time. But I wonder if our hero would have pulled his gun and saved the day had the shooter continued to fire unhindered. Your "real story" is a product of your imagination. Our hero still allowed two people to die, didn't he? Now, many people would the shooter have killed if he didn't have a gun, or even access to a gun?

Apologies to the CC. I'm sure he did what he could, when he could. My point is that having CC around doesn't ensure jack shit, except that there may be more bullets flying around a crowded area, if they even stick around and shoot. I don't believe people CC primarily to protect other people. I think the mindset is largely self-preservation.

Wow, I see so many viewing fails here.

1) Yes, some of these people are gun novices. But these people got more training in gun-handling and marksmanship than is required by most states in the U.S. and they STILL failed to stop the shooter.

2) The whole point of the video is that it takes hundreds of hours of training under stress (like in this scenario) in order for people to overcome their natural instincts and avoid a) freezing up or b) accidentally shooting themselves or another innocent in the confusion.

3) How many gun carriers (barring ex-military or police) have had the kind of training mentioned in Point #2? Of those that have, how many continue to put in the training hours necessary to not lose the skill?

It's all great spouting hypotheticals about how a CCW would have saved the day at Sandy Hook, but this video shows that's a patently false statement. What might have resulted in less casualties would have been a CCW in the hands of a highly disciplined individual with combat firearms training experience. How many gun carrying Americans do you know who fit that description?

And even if such a person HAD been in the school on that day, with the shooter wearing a bullet-proof vest and utilizing a semi-automatic rifle, there's no guarantee the outcome would have been any different.

More guns in the hands of undertrained Americans is not the answer. Modifying the social system so that identifying and dealing with mentally unstable individuals before they go on shooting rampages is a priority, though, would be a step in the right direction.

Good thing the gunman in this knew exactly who to shoot at first.

If somebody walks into my class and starts shooting then I'd prefer he wasnt the only one with a gun. Unfortunately I sure as hell don't want to be carrying the rest of the time, and I don't want my classmates armed either.

Basically I can accept that there are situations where a rampage is cut short by a gun owner, and hell maybe they aren't reported as often as where the rampage continues...but then you have to also accept that the murders that don't happen at all because the perp couldn't get their hands on a firearm also don't get reported. Anecdotes only take you so far.

And ya, this "study" seems pretty bs.

I think I could just paste my comment on half of the discusions around here. I think I will.

Here in Portland Oregon, A kid with a AR-15 walked into Clackamas Mall on Dec 11 to kill as many people as he could. He shot 3 people and his gun jammed, while he was fixing his jam, a citizen with a conealed carry permt drew his weopon and confronted the shooter, The shooter fled down a stairwell and shot himself. The mall was a gun free zone (the guy with the CCW was breaking the rules) and filled with thousands of holiday shoppers. The rampage was ended because one person could defend himself from the cowardly nutjob. You will not see the real story in the mainstream media.

Here in Portland Oregon, A kid with a AR-15 walked into Clackamas Mall on Dec 11 to kill as many people as he could. He shot 3 people and his gun jammed, while he was fixing his jam, a citizen with a conealed carry permt drew his weopon and confronted the shooter, The shooter fled down a stairwell and shot himself. The mall was a gun free zone (the guy with the CCW was breaking the rules) and filled with thousands of holiday shoppers. The rampage was ended because one person could defend himself from the cowardly nutjob. You will not see the real story in the mainstream media.

So you're saying that banning all firearms in the USA will decrease the murder rate?
You'll still have a huge black market firearms (which are easy to make from tools from Harbor Freight in your Garage), see Assault Shovel:
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning

Also 2 of the biggest homicides in the USA were done with no guns at all, see Timothy McVay and Andrew Kehoe.

I'm not a gun advocate at all, but just banning firearms won't "fix" the problem of rampage killers or lower the homicide rate.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

not sure if this is a bug, but i can not submit an * isdupe comment on a dupe. http://videosift.com/video/Redneck-Rampage-Ashli-Gay

edit: after waiting 5 minutes and right after i posted this, it went through.

>> ^njjh201:

Iran is huge, if you lined its western border up with the west coast of the USA it would stretch from the Mexican border to the Canadian, and as far inland as Western Colorado.
Isfahan is right in the middle of all that, so bringing 'war torn' into this makes about as much sense as linking a shooting rampage in Denver to the drug wars in Mexico.
And in any case there's no war in Iran just yet. War torn Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc are all hundreds of miles away.
>> ^artician:
Wow. Even knowing this is coming from (what we're told is) a war-torn part of the world, that's insane.
Haven't they heard of streaking?



You're absolutely right. Wartorn was a poor word choice on my part. "Militaristic" would probably be more accurate, but ultimately I was trying to convey that most US folk don't really know what it's like over there, and they have a bad reputation. And on top of that, now, grenades at football games.

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

I'm very surprised the officer did not get out of the car with his gun drawn. I know were suppose to be a gun tolerant society but how did that officer know that they were not about to go on some kind of rampage?

You think they might be deranged and your plan to calm them down is to pull a gun on them? You may want to rethink that.

This is all about getting a reaction. As gun happy of a Nation we seem to be I have managed to go through life never really publicly seeing them. In my interactions with firearms they have always been kind of the dirty little secret you hide at home. I remember how shocked I was to see soldiers carry automatic riffles in a Paris train station. So honestly if I had seen these two gentlemen out in about carrying these weapons I would of been freaked out.

I'm very surprised the officer did not get out of the car with his gun drawn. I know were suppose to be a gun tolerant society but how did that officer know that they were not about to go on some kind of rampage? I hate to bring race into it but was it because they were white? I have to doubt this is how they would of reacted if the two civilians had been African American. Which is odd because and I may be wrong about this but every time I hear about a mass killing in America the suspect/s is/are usually white.

Thank you, Barseps!
In reply to this comment by Barseps:
Now THIS raised a smile from me :

^Upvoted^
*Wheels
*Doublepromote
*Quality

Thanks for posting