Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51112131415161718 LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 263

Thread: Guns...

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,742

    Re: Guns...



    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    first off theres plenty of times i feel there is an ability, but to counter I do not understand why your reaction to any given situation is start shooting immediately without leaving a moment of time to consider the situation. This notion that a gun solves every problem is just not correct. Murder will happen regardless from time to time. this is one of those situations.

    you just got hit by a car AND ran over and apparently your first instinct is to pull out your gun and start shooting? Thats completely unrealistic to the situation of just being hit unexpectedly without reason and ran over (apparently twice). even if he was alive and kicking that doesnt mean he was coherent or had an ability or was on alert to actually defend himself from an attack. Im also not seeing that in any story i read so far as far as witnesses saying he was fighting back or alive/coherent initially. They all said they ran him over and immediately started hacking him with their knife and clever. As a bystander, again, seeing somebody get run over and immediately hacked up, there isnt much youre going to do at that point to save that person, which ultimately was the only victim.

    IF they continued to try and kill others, than there would be more reason to say a gun could have prevented further death/injury, but that wasnt the case. infact theres plenty of stories that said people did try to stop them despite having knives and a rusty gun.

    The notion that the victim could have saved himself if only he was carrying a gun is completely unfounded. The notion that a bystander after seeing a car accident would immediately pull a gun and defend the victim is shakey at best. In that moment nobody is reaching for their gun, their first reaction is to help or call help or run/watch. If a persons reaction is to pull a gun out after seeing a car accident than i just feel sorry for them. Certain incidences are just not going to alter whether youre carrying or not.
    JAB you're mixing this scenario and hypothetical scenarios mixed with huge amounts of over looking specific details to come to your opinion.

    Saying you'd feel sorry for someone who just witnessed a car accident if they immediately went for their gun is over loooking that they ran this guy over (apparently twice) and then got out and started hacking off his head is way different.

    Continue to think that once any attack starts that there is nothing no one can do to stop it, that's your prerogative. I would hope that if I was that soldier and someone around me was armed and witnessed me get run over and then the people get out with knives and guns that said armed person would try to step up and stop it.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  2. #212

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    I know a BaltCo officer who was run over 5 times and still had the wherewithal to pull his weapon and fire off 3 shots. She had broken both femurs and her hip.

    You're automatically assuming, based on ???? I don't know, that someone run over would immediately and permanently be unable to defend themselves.
    personal experiences vs personal experiences. not to mention endless youtube videos to support that people getting hit by cars very rarely jump right up unless its under extremely slow circumstances. looking at the damage done to the car, its not hard to conclude this was not a slow impact to begin with, being run over at that point is just icing on the cake so to speak. based on your own they had him pinned against a tree at first. (note: your reference that if only HE had a gun he could have defended is mainly where i disagree in all of this).

    The victim himself could have been armed and not necessarily everyone else. The attackers first struck him with a car, pinning him against a tree. There's opportunity right there to take out a weapon and defend himself. Then they drug him into the street before stabbing him. Again, another opportunity for someone to pull out a weapon and end things right there.
    even by looking at the photos you can tell the second part is wrong. He wasnt taken and then initially stabbed.



    the blood trail leads to the street meaning he was stabbed at the tree. please show me where people were saying he was coherent after it and even remotely defended himself and ill gladly say a gun could have been, at the very least, an option if he wasnt "pinned" from getting to it. Im not using conjecture, im using whats been stated photos and physics. they hit him, they ran over him, they stabbed him immediately afterward and simply looking at the car damage to come to that conclusion.

    The fluidity of being attacked and the uniqueness of each and every time someone is attacked is something you don't seem to fathom.
    I look at each individually. which is why we disagree on the outcomes of these. I think having a gun to protect is a good thing its the effectiveness per situation and when to use it are where we typically disagree. i feel per situation youre not taking into account circumstances your end result is always, "better to have a gun than not". which is fine and id agree for the most part, i just dont agree that it always matters.

    Could it be unlikely that this soldier could not have defended himself? Sure. But I will never jump to the conclusion it's impossible and I'd like to see people prepared for that scenario.
    if youre on that much of an alert at all times. that in a dazed state after an accident your first thought is to start processing if your in an attack thats fine. I just dont believe that to be the case with most people.

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Saying you'd feel sorry for someone who just witnessed a car accident if they immediately went for their gun is over loooking that they ran this guy over (apparently twice) and then got out and started hacking off his head is way different.
    Ive seen video of a lady run over a guy. twice. she then got out of her car and walked over to look at him and got back into her car and tried to drive off again. people were around, nobody jumped to pull out a gun and shoot her but she had every bit as much time to start knifing the victim if she was going to. FTR, they did try to stop her from driving off again. Is that because she was female? maybe. i just dont think its everyones instinct to be ready to shoot at all times. It seems like you guys are always looking for a reason to use your gun, which at least at the basis of the argument i can understand, because a gun is worthless if youre not ready to use it. I just dont think certain situations thats realistic.

    Continue to think that once any attack starts that there is nothing no one can do to stop it, that's your prerogative. I would hope that if I was that soldier and someone around me was armed and witnessed me get run over and then the people get out with knives and guns that said armed person would try to step up and stop it.
    I dont think ANY attack cannot be stopped once started. thats not remotely how i feel. There are plenty that i feel have no effect regardless though. hoping to be saved and the effectiveness/likelihood you are, are two different things. in this instance i dont think a gun mattered much at all. Id hope as well somebody would have one to try or prevent further if need be but in this instance, nor further attack was made, so no further action was needed, making a bystander having a gun, moot.
    -JAB




  3. #213
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,742

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    I just dont think certain situations thats realistic.

    I dont think ANY attack cannot be stopped once started. thats not remotely how i feel. There are plenty that i feel have no effect regardless though. hoping to be saved and the effectiveness/likelihood you are, are two different things. in this instance i dont think a gun mattered much at all. Id hope as well somebody would have one to try or prevent further if need be but in this instance, nor further attack was made, so no further action was needed, making a bystander having a gun, moot.
    That's fair, I think where we got off on this one was applying this situation to others or others to this situation.

    But it is possible that had there been folks who were just standing around watching this, that had they been armed could have stopped the killers before they finished and maybe saved the guys life. But since that's not even an option over there, we'll never know.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  4. #214
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,509

    Re: Guns...

    Again, I don't see how you can look at any situation and say with certainty that defending yourself is futile or impossible.

    For someone with actual experience in this, it simply doesn't compute, particularly your last paragraph. That's the height of Monday morning QBing.

    I guess we will never see eye to eye on this topic.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  5. #215

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Again, I don't see how you can look at any situation and say with certainty that defending yourself is futile or impossible.

    For someone with actual experience in this, it simply doesn't compute, particularly your last paragraph. That's the height of Monday morning QBing.

    I guess we will never see eye to eye on this topic.
    Id still like the link to where witnesses say he was alive and conscience after the initial hit or basically had an ability to use a gun. you say you heard it, i say i didnt. thats pretty much the difference in this whole argument. youre saying in this exact situation there was a chance to defend himself. from what ive read/heard there was no mention he was able even if he did have one. Could be conjecture on either or both of our parts seeing we clearly have not read the same things. given that its this particular situation were talking about one should be looking at it in hindsight, no?

    its possible we agree on this very incident. probably not the likelihood of its benefits in the same scenario over and over again however.
    -JAB




  6. #216
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,509

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    Id still like the link to where witnesses say he was alive and conscience after the initial hit or basically had an ability to use a gun. you say you heard it, i say i didnt. thats pretty much the difference in this whole argument.
    It was a Daily Mail article that I cannot locate. It went along with how folks were feeling powerless to help. There've been so many articles since it's difficult to skim everything and locate it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    given that its this particular situation were talking about one should be looking at it in hindsight, no?
    No. Once either the victim or someone in the crowd introduced a firearm to the scenario, every event after that point is certainly and irreversibly changed.

    Keep in mind it took 20 minutes before armed cops got there. We also know this nut job actually walked up to people with knives in hand and hands covered in blood. At any minute, this loon could have killed someone else. And, at any minute, someone could have neutralized him by shooting him.

    Maybe we are saying the same thing but for one or two small details. But I still can't apply the relative certainty you seem comfortable using.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  7. #217

    Re: Guns...

    To attempt t parse through the debate.

    IF a gun in your pocket gives you even a 1 in 100 chance of survival in that instance, how could you possibly NOT want it? in a hindsight situation?
    If one of the spectators had a gun, and that increased your chances of survival by even as little as 1 in 5, how could you NOT want that chance?

    Now, Jab can make a strong argument that a firearm being in the area could have led to additional casualties from missed shots, or even on trget shots that pass trhough the intended target, and I won't dispute that. A responsibile gun owner knows not to shoot if his sight picture isn't entirely clean, meaning even an on target shot that has the potential to pass through your intended target and do damage should be avoided, so RESPONSIBLE, TRAINED firearm usage drops that chance to near zero.


    Te anti-gun crowd to me always thinks in absolutes, in a utopian way. Idon't think the understadn that banning guns takes ZERO awy from the criminals. With how many frearms exist in this country, it hardly even dents the future availability of FUTURE criminals getting them, even if they are currently unborn. For some reason, that point jsut does nto appear to sink in. It's better to think of it in a way to assume that all criminlas, now or in the future will have access to firearms for the forseeable future(potentially 100 years or more) even if firearms and ammunition became immediately and completely illegal. Think of it in those terms and tell me you want to deny responsible adult citizens to own a firearm for the purpose of protecting themselves.
    If the firearm were to be invented TOMORROW, I would agree that citizns should not be able to own them. Instead, they were invented several hundredyears ago and you can't pu the crap back in the cow, so IMO, it's better to put law abiding citizens on equal footing with those which intend to harm them.




  8. #218

    Re: Guns...

    honestly Im not even trying to make a point about collateral damage. at least not this time. aurora i certainly was but that was completely different circumstance. i just dont see this particular instance as a reason to be pro or against guns. Maybe its not coming off like that, but i dont see the point in putting a gun in the dead victims hand just to say "at least he had a shot" whether he had an opportunity or not. obviously i wasnt there, and as more comes out ill gladly admit that if he had even the remote ability to use a weapon, he should have, i just dont think he ever did. so whether or not he did have one doesnt change anything that resulted, imo.

    to me the notion the crowd or someone within it would react with force within an instance enough to save him just seems far fetched, but id agree someone in the crowd would at least have better use by comparison to the guy that just got ran over and pinned against an immovable object. the crowd did react, after they ran into, ran over, drug, stabbed, tried to behead and moved him into the street. I think it took time to comprehend what they were witnessing, accident or attack. by the time it was seen as an attack and they came forward to stop them, it was too late. they did so regardless that they were unarmed and the attackers were, which to me is an indication they didnt process it was an attack until it was too late for the victim. the crowd to protect themselves i dont argue would have benefited had they tried to kill more, but again knowing they didnt attack anybody else, whether they did or didnt, the result is the same in this case.
    -JAB




  9. #219

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    honestly Im not even trying to make a point about collateral damage. at least not this time. aurora i certainly was but that was completely different circumstance. i just dont see this particular instance as a reason to be pro or against guns. Maybe its not coming off like that, but i dont see the point in putting a gun in the dead victims hand just to say "at least he had a shot" whether he had an opportunity or not. obviously i wasnt there, and as more comes out ill gladly admit that if he had even the remote ability to use a weapon, he should have, i just dont think he ever did. so whether or not he did have one doesnt change anything that resulted, imo.

    to me the notion the crowd or someone within it would react with force within an instance enough to save him just seems far fetched, but id agree someone in the crowd would at least have better use by comparison to the guy that just got ran over and pinned against an immovable object. the crowd did react, after they ran into, ran over, drug, stabbed, tried to behead and moved him into the street. I think it took time to comprehend what they were witnessing, accident or attack. by the time it was seen as an attack and they came forward to stop them, it was too late. they did so regardless that they were unarmed and the attackers were, which to me is an indication they didnt process it was an attack until it was too late for the victim. the crowd to protect themselves i dont argue would have benefited had they tried to kill more, but again knowing they didnt attack anybody else, whether they did or didnt, the result is the same in this case.

    JUst from my own persepective, had Ibeen in the crowd, the peopel exiting the car after hitting hm and brandishing a knife wuld probably be line for me to jump in. I they concealed the knife until right beore stabbing him, he likely would have been stabbed once beore I "saved" him. I don't know if that would have saved him or not. So that much we can agree on.

    Collateral damage is a very real argument in these types of incidents, but is virtually eliminated with proper training.




  10. #220
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,742

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    honestly Im not even trying to make a point about collateral damage. at least not this time. aurora i certainly was but that was completely different circumstance. i just dont see this particular instance as a reason to be pro or against guns. Maybe its not coming off like that, but i dont see the point in putting a gun in the dead victims hand just to say "at least he had a shot" whether he had an opportunity or not. obviously i wasnt there, and as more comes out ill gladly admit that if he had even the remote ability to use a weapon, he should have, i just dont think he ever did. so whether or not he did have one doesnt change anything that resulted, imo.

    to me the notion the crowd or someone within it would react with force within an instance enough to save him just seems far fetched, but id agree someone in the crowd would at least have better use by comparison to the guy that just got ran over and pinned against an immovable object. the crowd did react, after they ran into, ran over, drug, stabbed, tried to behead and moved him into the street. I think it took time to comprehend what they were witnessing, accident or attack. by the time it was seen as an attack and they came forward to stop them, it was too late. they did so regardless that they were unarmed and the attackers were, which to me is an indication they didnt process it was an attack until it was too late for the victim. the crowd to protect themselves i dont argue would have benefited had they tried to kill more, but again knowing they didnt attack anybody else, whether they did or didnt, the result is the same in this case.
    The whole point though JAB is... it's not even an option over there. Debating whether it would have or could have made a difference is irrelevant when you can't even carry one.

    So if you relate that to the pro or anti gun case, this is exactly what people mean when they say, criminals don't care about the law.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  11. #221

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    The whole point though JAB is... it's not even an option over there. Debating whether it would have or could have made a difference is irrelevant when you can't even carry one.

    So if you relate that to the pro or anti gun case, this is exactly what people mean when they say, criminals don't care about the law.
    It's actually worse then that though. Criminals actively PREFER England's types of laws, as they face less opposition. It is why places that expressly ban firearms have been the target of nearly every mass shooting since the mid 60's... easier target. It is why the Reisterstown Road Corridor had a string of burglaries all fall, but NOT the liquor stores, NOT the banks, NOT the jewelry stores... it was the low hanging fruit like Pizza Hut(x2), Pizza Bolis, the Vet(for cash, notdrugs), the diner, etc. Of Note(Antony's was robbed twice, but early indications are tht it was an inside job). Criminals wat to be the ONLY ONES with guns, so they have a gigantic advantage. Oncewe can establish the fact that they WILL have them, I don't see the point in taking away our rights to protect ourselves from them.




  12. #222
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,509
    I'm in the process of getting my first NFA weapon. It's a short barreled AR-15 (12"), chambered to .300 AAC and with a integral suppressor ...

    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1369495173.753858.jpg

    So I've had to deal directly with the BATFE on two occasion so far, both having to deal the required paperwork.

    I have to admit. It's been a very professional process thus far. I know they've contacted an old neighbor if mine for the background check.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  13. #223
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,509
    Spoke too soon.

    Just checked the mail. My application is on hold due an "irregularity" in my paperwork.

    Have to call them tomorrow to find out what it is.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  14. #224
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,742

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Spoke too soon.

    Just checked the mail. My application is on hold due an "irregularity" in my paperwork.

    Have to call them tomorrow to find out what it is.
    And 6 months later, you may get approved.

    Here's a question. Looking for a IWB holster, thinking maybe a crossbreed, thoughts?
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  15. #225
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,509
    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    And 6 months later, you may get approved.
    I was told my time doesn't start over. We shall see. Found out this morning what was wrong. I was missing a page from my NFA Trust.

    Can't fire my lawyer for this. Dagger.

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Here's a question. Looking for a IWB holster, thinking maybe a crossbreed, thoughts?
    I swear by these ...

    http://www.comp-tac.com/product_info...ba2qil24g285q1

    I forget I'm carrying sometimes.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland