I know, I know, another gun thread....

[JoeA]

Okay, fair enough. Instead of mandatory training with a firearm, I want them to have mandatory practice. Better?

While there have been a few instances of a driver purposely driving their vehicle into a crowd of people with the sole intention of causing harm, most vehicular injuries and deaths are accidents. They are done without intent. It doesn't make it any better to lose a loved one because a person accidentally drove like an idiot and killed them, but they didn't set out to kill someone. That is the difference for me between a gun and a car. When people are killing people with their car on purpose on a daily basis, I will be just as up in arms about that as I am about guns. As we all know, we can't ban, restrict, test everything. Bleach is harmful, but until people start using bleach every single day to kill others, I'm okay with not having any laws about bleach.

Also, my concern isn't about the 500 accidental firearm deaths you noted. I'm more concerned about the 12,000+ homicides and far more injuries that weren't even remotely accidental.

For the record, I think it is also insane that we don't require on the road testing for drivers every few years.

Man, I wish there were more places to "practice". Can't tell you how much I hear things like this and in the next breath they want to close all ranges.

And the OP reminds me of a great quote from Malcom in Jurassic Park: "Sometimes we do things because we can but don't stop to consider if we should". Or something like that.

 

[LisaR]

Using that logic, the more sensible option is to ban alcohol. Alcohol can't provide food or provide self defense. When that doesn't work, then ban guns.

... and when that doesn't work, just ban people.

I'll certainly get behind a ban on people!!

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

And again, that's fine if the whole point was to prove that the shooter could take out the one person carrying the gun. That wasn't the point. The point was to show how the trainee responded with advanced knowledge that they would be called upon to use their gun that day. They didn't stop the exercise the second the trainee was hit. It was an exercise in how someone who has had a few hours worth of training, and in a few cases already felt comfortable with a gun, would respond.

I disagree. The point of that exercise was to show that carrying a gun isn't going to help in an active shooter situation, and they stacked the deck in favor of the shooter.
Those people weren't comfortable with their gun. Again they were made to wear gloves, try handling anything with gloves. It hinders your ability to grip your firearm and place your finger in the trigger. I'd also wager they probably chose a more difficult holster. The goggles would make it very difficult to see what's going on, particularly when it comes to your hip, where your gun is holstered. Your location isn't known to an active shooter. You keep saying the individual knew they were going to be tested. Well theirs a difference between telling someone that at sometime today you may or may not be tested, and sending a trained shooter into a room with instructions to take out the person in Row-1 Seat-12.

 

[3Gsandme]

And what are you going to put on the restraining order? "He looks scary" "He's carrying a gun. I know it's legal but I don't like it"

So you're trying to tell me that the Colorado Theater shooter would have otherwise come into a DARK theater and started watching for who was "fumbling" for a weapon instead of just randomly opening fire like he did?

Added just for the record, do I think he should be carrying the gun? Absolutely not!

First, i don't know what you'd put on the restraining order, but I'd be trying. I mean, isn't being worried that someone may assault you a reason for a restraining order? Because, I'd honestly be worried about that and it's not hyperbole or rhetoric.

Second, I don't believe for one second that a "good guy with a gun" would have done anything in Aurora than have created more dead bodies and I think "good guys with gun" that believe they could have made any positive difference in a lot of these situations are, sadly, a big part of the problem.

 

[3Gsandme]

Actually, it looks like the people in that neighborhood could get a restraining order against him. In Ohio you're allowed to get one "An SSOOPO is a civil order designed to protect you from someone from harming, attempting to harm, threatening, following, stalking, harassing, contacting, or forcing sexual relations upon you."

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Yep! Sucks, doesn't it? Life simply isn't fair. I have to show ID to buy Sudafed or spray paint. I have to take my shoes off at the airport. I can't take my own bottle of water through security at the airport. I have to go through the most useless security I've ever seen just to enter Disney. Sucks, but rules and laws come about when some people do stupid things. The rest of us have to suffer through them.

I have to show ID to buy a firearm and ammo also.
What are any of those things; ID to buy sudafed, removing shoes at airport, or the Mickey Mouse security check accomplishing or solving. I'll answer NOTHING. So why create more and more laws that will only hinder everyone else?

 

[rajak73]

Second, I don't believe for one second that a "good guy with a gun" would have done anything in Aurora than have created more dead bodies and I think "good guys with gun" that believe they could have made any positive difference in a lot of these situations are, sadly, a big part of the problem.

But you said they would be looking for someone "fumbling" for a weapon. And I don't know if "a good guy with a gun" would have made any difference anymore than you don't know If it would have been worse. It's YOUR opinion just like it's MY opinion.

First, i don't know what you'd put on the restraining order, but I'd be trying. I mean, isn't being worried that someone may assault you a reason for a restraining order? Because, I'd honestly be worried about that and it's not hyperbole or rhetoric.

Wonder if that would work at WDW, "I'd like a restraining order against these 25,000 people at the gate because I think one of them might assault me or have a knife on them."

 

[rajak73]

Actually, it looks like the people in that neighborhood could get a restraining order against him. In Ohio you're allowed to get one "An SSOOPO is a civil order designed to protect you from someone from harming, attempting to harm, threatening, following, stalking, harassing, contacting, or forcing sexual relations upon you."

Now while I don't agree that he should be walking around with a rifle strapped to his back, who has he harmed, attempted to harm, threatened, followed, stalked, harassed, contacted or forced sexual relations on? Not what I read in the story.

 

[3Gsandme]

Now while I don't agree that he should be walking around with a rifle strapped to his back, who has he harmed, attempted to harm, threatened, followed, stalked, harassed, contacted or forced sexual relations on? Not what I read in the story.

Again, if someone was marching around my neighborhood with a gun on his back, I'd feel threatened, stalked and harassed. I'm not saying that for hyperbole's sake. It's the truth. I'd no longer feel safe in my home.

 

[3Gsandme]

But you said they would be looking for someone "fumbling" for a weapon. And I don't know if "a good guy with a gun" would have made any difference anymore than you don't know If it would have been worse. It's YOUR opinion just like it's MY opinion.

Wonder if that would work at WDW, "I'd like a restraining order against these 25,000 people at the gate because I think one of them might assault me or have a knife on them."

My response was to your complaint about what was wrong with that active shooter video. It obviously doesn't apply across the board. YOU said they sat the concealed carry person in the same seat each time negating what the video showed. I suggested that a shooter could, perhaps, see someone fumbling for a weapon depending on the situation.

And, what I believe about the Aurora shooting will persist. One shooter inside a dark movie theater with people panicing was terrible. Two would be catastrophic

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Again, if someone was marching around my neighborhood with a gun on his back, I'd feel threatened, stalked and harassed. I'm not saying that for hyperbole's sake. It's the truth. I'd no longer feel safe in my home.

Just because you'd feel that way doesn't make it so.

 

[CPanther95]

Forget "good guy with a gun" scenarios that are trying to use GGWAG as a means to provide a level of defense for everyone.

The only scenario that matters is "You with a Gun". A gunman is shooting people right next to you and you have a chance to fire your weapon at him before he gets to you. Everybody should have that right to have that opportunity. Most shootings occur at 6 feet or less. You don't need to be a certified firearms instructor to point a gun and with the barrel 3 feet away from your target's head - hit your target. You certainly have a better chance of saving yourself, than if you are unarmed and do nothing. Nobody has the right to say that someone should not have the chance to save their own life.

And it is a ridiculous assertion that if someone is unable to save all those around them in the event of a mass shooting, then their right to just save themselves is forfeit. If everyone took it upon themselves to provide for their own safety, these mass shootings would be far less effective. The only thing worse than not taking that responsibility on yourself, is actively trying to deny others the right to defend themselves so that we can all be equal victims and nobody has a better chance of survival than anyone else.

Show me that same video where everybody has a gun. Lets see how many the shooter can pick off before he has to start worrying about incoming rounds.

 

[LisaR]

Again, if someone was marching around my neighborhood with a gun on his back, I'd feel threatened, stalked and harassed. I'm not saying that for hyperbole's sake. It's the truth. I'd no longer feel safe in my home.

In Florida, I believe you would have every right to shoot him if you felt threatened, stalked, or harassed. At least that's the way some interpret the law here.

 

[CPanther95]

Just because you'd feel that way doesn't make it so.

I feel harassed by Vegans.

 

[LisaR]

I feel harassed by Vegans.

I'm sorry. As a vegan, I apologize for my people. Can I offer you a stalk of broccoli as a peace offering? Some lentils? Ya know, you really should get more plants into your diet. Let me take a moment to tell you all about what you're missing.....

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

I like to get my vegetables secondhand. I let the cow eat it first. But tonight it's deer.

 

[3Gsandme]

Just because you'd feel that way doesn't make it so.

Sure, but if I'm the one applying, it's based on me, right? And, that's how i would feel. I wouldn't feel safe. I'd feel terrorized and threatened. I wouldn't feel safe. Maybe it wouldn't bother you to have someone skulking around your neighborhood with a gun on his back, but it would bother me.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Sure, but if I'm the one applying, it's based on me, right? And, that's how i would feel. I wouldn't feel safe. I'd feel terrorized and threatened. I wouldn't feel safe. Maybe it wouldn't bother you to have someone skulking around your neighborhood with a gun on his back, but it would bother me.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. The police will most likely ask you why your afraid, and what has he done? Simply being their isn't harassment, and it's legal to carry.

 

[kamik86]

Actually, it looks like the people in that neighborhood could get a restraining order against him. In Ohio you're allowed to get one "An SSOOPO is a civil order designed to protect you from someone from harming, attempting to harm, threatening, following, stalking, harassing, contacting, or forcing sexual relations upon you."

I'm not sure just legally walking on your street with a gun is any of those things.

If so you could get a restraining order against anyone you didn't like for walking on your street.

I would think you would have to show they actually did something to threaten you, were actually following not just walking on the street, etc

There have been a number of cases with people being afraid for their life and told that the police couldn't do anything or even give a restraining order. Some of those people ended up dead by the exact person they were afraid of.

Restraining orders aren't nearly as useful as people think.


And honestly getting everyont to get restraining orders against this guy just might escalate things. I would not be surprised if shortly after a number of his friends start doing the same thing

 

[Domo]

I'd feel intimidated. Knowing what an average rifle can do and all, even knowing how safe the individual is. I feel much happier knowing that guns are under lock and key when not in use.