Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that just owning a gun and having a concealed license automatically means that a person becomes calm and reasonable; who is capable of clearly dealing with what I assume would be a utterly chaotic situation like a crazed gunmen is a crowded area by some default. If so, sign me up, I'm ready to be citizen hero.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that being a security guard automatically makes you calm and reasonable either. Only these poweful security guards can handle it. Because we can obviously fake a scenario like this to see how this particular security guard would react in the situation given, right?

I dont think anyone is ready for this situation but people have a right to defend themselves if the situation occures. Doesn't have to do with being a hero. In this case, guns saved. I'm sure a licensed man knows how to handle a threat against him. As seen here.

YouTube video

Another instance where gun saved.

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed, cops aren't. Maybe we need to hire more police officers and provide them with better training? Maybe have schools have an armed yet discreet security guard or even a cop? Sounds more logical than expecting armed middle-age soccer moms to dispense justice.

Nice strawman. Middle aged soccer moms, they're everyone! Too bad they're not like israeli teachers, eh?

Spend more taxes on the police? Why not just call martial law when you get to that point? My point is, you're going to have to defend yourself. You've never been is a helpless situation?

Originally posted by Robtard

My point: that man was a paid security guard who obliviously went through gun training and courses on how to deal with a situation such as that. There's no telling how capable a regular person is.

Yeah like those two officers in NYC. Like I said above, I doubt anyone is perpared for that situation. The elderly man in the video above handled it well.

Originally posted by Robtard

Look at the "hero" from not long ago, the old man who had a concealed gun and decided to turn what would have most likely been a simple armed robbery into a shoot-out where at least one bystander was almost shot. IMO, it would have been better to just let the thieves take the money/goods and leave, items can be replaced.

Almost shot! Good heavens! Another man in the video above. No one shot, except the bad guys. Property saved. Theres no guessing what the thieves would have done.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're not thinking like a Libertarian. Human life has zero value, only objects and money should be protected.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that being a security guard automatically makes you calm and reasonable either. Only these poweful security guards can handle it. Because we can obviously fake a scenario like this to see how this particular security guard would react in the situation given, right?

I dont think anyone is ready for this situation but people have a right to defend themselves if the situation occures. Doesn't have to do with being a hero. In this case, guns saved. I'm sure a licensed man knows how to handle a threat against him. As seen here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=39_c27nwyKI

Another instance where gun saved.

Nice strawman. Middle aged soccer moms, they're everyone! Too bad they're not like israeli teachers, eh?

Spend more taxes on the police? Why not just call martial law when you get to that point? My point is, you're going to have to defend yourself. You've never been is a helpless situation?

Yeah like those two officers in NYC. Like I said above, I doubt anyone is perpared for that situation. The elderly man in the video above handled it well.

Almost shot! Good heavens! Another man in the video above. No one shot, except the bad guys. Property saved. Theres no guessing what the thieves would have done.

Obviously no. The point: But at least they have the training and it's their job. Some random person walking around with a concealed weapon, who the hell knows.

LoL, that's the same video I mention with "the hero", the old man shot at a thief while a woman was not 3 feet away. His aim was also terrible, he failed to down either guy, what if they turned around and started firing back? There's people all around. Yeah, as we saw owning a gun = knows how to handle himself by some default. Nope.

Saved who exactly? As I said, that idiot turned a robbery into a gunfight, luckily the armed thieves fled and didn't fire back. Let's all applaud the wannabe savior though. Do we really want to compare "gun saved" to "guns killed" numbers?

You don't know what a strawman is. I didn't pass that off as your words. I was using it as an example of 'who exactly are we trusting with concealed weapons'. At least cops and security guards have to have the training, common citizens don't.

LoL, "police state!", but yes, having more and better trained police officers or security guards makes more sense than relying on random citizens to be heroes. If stricter guns laws isn't a possibility. I've never been in a situation where 'more armed citizens' helped. No.

Unless we're having people who have already experienced situations like that, no, no one is perfectly prepared. But I'd take a trained cop over random guy with gun any day. Far more sensible.

Repeat: Go watch the video: See second line above.

It couldn't be that video because that wasn't a gun fight 😛

They just booked it. Saved everyone I guess. It doesn't necessarily have to be their life. Few bucks here and there lol.

I don't care about heroism. Just protection.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
It couldn't be that video because that wasn't a gun fight 😛

They just booked it. Saved everyone I guess. It doesn't necessarily have to be their life. Few bucks here and there lol.

I don't care about heroism. Just protection.

Yeah, yeah, semantics.

So you'd rather be in a situation where bullets are flying than having your wallet, watch, rings etc stolen? How odd.

Fair enough. Do you really think more armed citizens and more relaxed gun laws nation wide is the answer to what happened in Connecticut?

The elderly vigilante was inches away from creating a closed circuit snuff film. That lady was probably deaf in one ear for the next few days. As for the crooks, them being scared off isn't a testament to the vigilante's shooting skills but a sign that they were crappy twobit crooks who weren't there to kill people.

If anything the video is a shining example of why gun toting upright citizens are more trouble than they're worth. If those criminals were gangbangers or hitmen or rampaging psychopaths or anyone who isn't afraid of a retiree with a snubnosed pistol (i.e. the perpetrators of most mass shootings), that scene would have ended in tragedy for everyone involved.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The elderly vigilante was inches away from creating a closed circuit snuff film.

Wrong: feet. Looks to be around 3 or 4.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That lady was probably deaf in one ear for the next few days.

Wrong: you have obviously never been near a handgun being shot, ever.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
As for the crooks, them being scared off isn't a testament to the vigilante's shooting skills but a sign that they were crappy twobit crooks who weren't there to kill people.

Wrong: it is a clear sign that even an old man with some training is more than enough to take on two armed robbers: one with a bat and one with a gun. And those supposed twobit crooks came in with a routine that seemed to have been performed multiple times or at the very least, decently rehearsed (not something drug addicts usually do). They were organized and walked the room immediately upon entering. They were also corralling the people so that they could all be seen. All it took was a few seconds with their backs turned for the old man to pull out his gun and start firing. The old man correctly chose the gun wielding gentleman as his first target...very smart.

So, no, they were not twobit crooks. They did a great job. They just happened to rob the wrong patrons, that day.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If anything the video is a shining example of why gun toting upright citizens are more trouble than they're worth. If those criminals were gangbangers or hitmen or rampaging psychopaths or anyone who isn't afraid of a retiree with a snubnosed pistol (i.e. the perpetrators of most mass shootings), that scene would have ended in tragedy for everyone involved.

Wrong: the video is a shining example of why gun toting upright citizens are definitely needed. If those criminals were gangbangers, they would not have been as organized or intelligent about their approach in the robbery: they would have been twobit crooks. If they were hitmen, they would not have performed the hit in front of everyone. If they were rampaging psychopaths that opened fire as soon as they got in, the old man would still have been in the clear because he would have been off to the side; he would still be able to pull out his gun and open fire on the "rampaging psychopaths"; the scene would have ended with far less loss of human life IF they were rampaging psychopaths AND the old man did still had his gun on him; if the old man did not have his gun AND they were raging psychopaths, they loss of life would have been much greater.

Your comments regarding that video are the most biased and ridiculous interpretation of that video I have seen. Part of me wishes you were joking because it is just so absurd.

Originally posted by Robtard
Apples to Oranges. An armed Security Guard is just that, a person providing security that is trained and authorized to use a weapon should the need arise.

You're grossly overestimating how much training almost all security guards actually receive regarding the guns they carry. I'd wager that the average citizen with a conceal and carry license has more instruction and practice shooting their gun than the average security guard. You have to have more than just a small interest in guns to get a conceal and carry.

The only conceal and carry license holders I know are gun enthusiasts and shoot frequently. Most of them are ex-military and one of their wives.

Originally posted by Robtard
Might as well use police videos of cops taking out threats to somehow show that the US actually needs more relaxed gun laws.

That would be apples to oranges, at that point: cops actually have to receive quite a bit of training, depending upon the city and/or municipality. Middle of nowhere towns? Some of them do not have nearly as much training as, say, an LA Cop.

have, not had...editing timeout fail. 🙁

Wow.

Originally posted by dadudemon

You're grossly overestimating how much training almost all security guards actually receive regarding the guns they carry. I'd wager that the average citizen with a conceal and carry license has more instruction and practice shooting their gun than the average security guard. You have to have more than just a small interest in guns to get a conceal and carry.

The only conceal and carry license holders I know are gun enthusiasts and shoot frequently. Most of them are ex-military and one of their wives.

That would be apples to oranges, at that point: cops actually have to receive quite a bit of training, depending upon the city and/or municipality. Middle of nowhere towns? Some of them do not have nearly as much training as, say, an LA Cop.

Maybe in your state, security guards who are licensed to carry guns have to go through several courses here. Unless the regulations were relaxed in the last 10 years or so.

Originally posted by Robtard
Maybe in your state, security guards who are licensed to carry guns have to go through several courses here. Unless the regulations were relaxed in the last 10 years or so.

Going through several 2 or 3 hour courses is not adequate enough. If you (yes, Robtard) are worried about stray bullets, they need to routinely do target shooting: both stationary and moving. Your conceal and carry crowd most likely has more training...at least in Oklahoma. In OK, you have to present your own gun and a course specific to your gun from a licensed instructor(revolvers get different training than, say, glock 20s).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Going through several 2 or 3 hour courses is not adequate enough. If you (yes, Robtard) are worried about stray bullets, they need to routinely do target shooting: both stationary and moving. Your conceal and carry crowd most likely has more training...at least in Oklahoma. In OK, you have to present your own gun and a course specific to your gun from a licensed instructor(revolvers get different training than, say, glock 20s).

Just like police officers, they have to keep it up to meet standards. So no, it's not they take a couple shots in the firing range, a course on gun maintenance and cleaning and they're licensed from here on out.

I'm absolutely sure they are US citizens who are calm, not prone to overreaction and who are dead-eye shots. But I still don't think "more armed citizens" is the cure for gun violence.

Originally posted by Robtard
Just like police officers, they have to keep it up to meet standards. So no, it's not they take a couple shots in the firing range, a course on gun maintenance and cleaning and they're licensed from here on out.

Like I said, my experience with the conceal and carry crowd is not as you describe: they like target shooting and most hunt.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm absolutely sure they are US citizens who are calm, not prone to overreaction and who are dead-eye shots.

Most probably are, yes. 😐

Originally posted by Robtard
But I still don't think "more armed citizens" is the cure for gun violence.

Nor do I. The young man involved in the shooting in CN got his guns from his mother....laaaaame. More guns is certainly not the solution.

EDIT:

Off topic. Look up your question on Google.

DDD doesn't understand hyperbole.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wrong: feet. Looks to be around 3 or 4.

Your comments regarding that video are the most biased and ridiculous interpretation of that video I have seen. Part of me wishes you were joking because it is just so absurd.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
DDD doesn't understand hyperbole.

Suuuure it was hyperbole. 313

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This changes everything. Omg.

It actually does. Shows he was more aware of his surroundings and target than your "hyperbole" let on.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Refer to hyperbole comment.

I'll remember to use that if I ever say wrong stuff in the future.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
They did a great job until they heard a gunshot.

Yeah, shooter was already shot and you don't bring a bat to a gun fight. They knew that they had better run, lol.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The fact that they ran away and didn't fire back even once tells me that either (1) they weren't experts at all

Incorrect conclusion: the probability of something like that happening is very very slim. It would have been illogical to conclude that someone could have pulled a gun and started firing immediately. They took the proper actions by corralling them to be in view.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
(2) they didn't have the nerve to shoot anyone or

Possibly.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
((3) they were cowards. In any case, this isn't an example of a heroic citizen foiling the kind of dangerous gunmen who perpetrate the major shootings.

The third is the most likely scenario. And the gunman in the CN shooting was a coward, as well. If he were shot once, I'd expect him to react with fear.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Not sure if racist or just misinformed.

Not sure if OV is racist or lives in an area in which all gangbangers are non-whites.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Hitmen will perform wherever they're hired to perform.

Wrong: Hitmen perform their job where it is best to perform it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If they had come in shooting you have no idea how it would have turned out.

Yeah, I do. When shooters walk into a room, they fire at what is in front of them or their intended target the extreme majority of the time. 😐

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The old man could just as likely have had a heart attack while drawing and blown off the head of a fellow patron as your John McClane scenario.

lol Not really.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There's a slim chance that the old man would have shot better under pressure (i.e. with bullets flying at him), but a larger chance that he wouldn't.

There's a slim chance that he would have been shot before he pulled his gun out but a larger chance that he could have shot at least one before the other psychopath, in your scenario, retaliated.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I will admit that the psychopath example is troublesome because in such a situation it's going to end in loss of life unless there are cops or well-trained which the old man (and most would be vigilantes) wasn't/wouldn't be prepared to shut it down.

I see it as a case where the old man saves lives. 🙂 But you'd rather err on the side the supports your position. I'd rather err on the side of what happens in most unprepared gunfights.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think you're looking at gun toting citizens with a naive romanticism.

I think you're looking at the conceal and carry population with no knowledge of them, at all.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
We all hope that we could save the day with our concealed carry pistol.

Maybe you do...but that's not what I think or hope in. I don't even have a gun.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That just isn't realistic without significant training.

I've logged plenty of hours. At that range, I could probably do better than the old man. 🙂

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I have a more ridiculous interpretation: that the old man or someone like him could have actually stopped any of the shootings that have fueled the current debate.

I have a less ridiculous interpretation than the above: at least one armed and trained individual already on site probably could have prevented some of those deaths. 🙁

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
EDIT:

Off topic. Look up your question on Google.

Originally posted by Robtard
Maybe in your state, security guards who are licensed to carry guns have to go through several courses here. Unless the regulations were relaxed in the last 10 years or so.

As well, you have to take a separate course for each type of ammo you want to use. Like, I'm qualified to use a 9mm round, but if I wanted to use a different type of round, like a .44 (which you actually are authorized to use, surprisingly), you have to take another course in order to qualify for it.

And yes, the licence expires annually.

edit- That being said, I have basically no skill with a gun beyond 20 meters, and god help the surrounding populace if I ever need to use it (fortunately, the site I work at does not have armed guards).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Like I said, my experience with the conceal and carry crowd is not as you describe: they like target shooting and most hunt.

Most probably are, yes. 😐

Nor do I. The young man involved in the shooting in CN got his guns from his mother....laaaaame. More guns is certainly not the solution.

Ask someone who's been in a war, or someone who's had to shoot at another person, especially another armed person shooting back, it's NOTHING like shooting at cardboard and glass bottles. (Yes, I've asked, that is what they said)

In the gun range, yes. A safe and structured place to shoot.

Then we really have no disagreement.

Originally posted by Robtard
Ask someone who's been in a war, or someone who's had to shoot at another person, especially another armed person shooting back, it's NOTHING like shooting at cardboard and glass bottles. (Yes, I've asked, that is what they said)

OK, I did. He said it's the same thing to even easier once the blood gets flowing. He referred to it as a "high".