New gun control push because of Tucson shooting

[Gravekeeper]

I find it somewhat amusing that it's still going after 15 pages

-yet still remains remarkably civil. >.>

While lack of evidence does not equal evidence of a lack, in this instance it's the most reasonable conclusion absent further information.

The biggest problem with this, is that it is almost uniquely an American problem and the two sides of the debate are uniquely American. It's very difficult to wade inbetween the two sides and not have one or the other try to forcibly toss you into the opposing camp.

As I said before, when it comes to guns, the culture is so incredibly different outside of the US. It's difficult for us northern snow dwellers to understand for example. But hard for us to say anything one way or the other without being tossed into the camp with the NRA froth or the Anti-Gun hippy extremes. I'll admit even in this discussion its been somewhat difficult trying to define my position without being classified as in the Anti-Gun Hippy category. Because my position is more just "Canadian" then anything else. ( For which, being Canadian, I apologize ).

Unfortunately neither are police.

Which is another thing thats somewhat baffling to me. As up here, that's kind of the point of their existence. Actually, I'd be interested in figuring out what the per capita is of police officers to population in the US. Do you have more or less than average? I can't seem to find any clear numbers.

The biggest problem in this discussion is that I'm speaking from a completely different enviroment than Wins and Vash. There isn't anything in Canada that makes us go "Shit, maybe I should own and/or carry a gun" ( Well, maybe bears ). For example you can't carry a concealed handgun in Canada for any reason whatsoever save one very special case permit of which only about 50 people in the entire country have. But by the same rule, we don't feel we need one either.

Like I said before, I grew up with guns in the house. A 9mm Glock, a Magnum, a 22 rifle and a Spas-12 ( guess which one I was allowed to use at my age. Hint: Not the Spas. ). But they were all used for target practice and target practice alone. They were kept locked up and unloaded. We had an ammo press to load our own ammo. But it wasn't kept anywhere near the actual guns. Because we didn't have them for defense. We didn't feel we needed them for defense.

Which is the key at the heart of this issue and why I'm trying to learn why some Americans *do* feel they need them for defense. Is crime really that bad there? Do your cops suck? Are there not enough cops? Are there social or economic factors?

Its easy enough to point out the Second Amendment as one reason, but really only the real hard core gun nuts leap straight to it. That's not what I'm curious about. I'm curious as to why you have more middle of the road people that feel they need such a weapon for defensive purposes.

What exactly is the enviroment around you that causes that?

Guns aren't the only things out there that are lethal in the case of a fuck up. Hell, for the things we accidentally kill ourselves and each other with on a daily basis, guns are too far down the list (less than 0.7% of all accidental deaths, annually) to warrant anywhere near the attention we give them.

That's honestly not too relevant though as the situations in question are already very rare. Comparing them to more common incidents and accidents doesn't say much one way or another. The attention itself comes from incidents like the Arizona shooting or when accidental shootings too occur ( and by god you'll hear about them for days ). That tends to focus the attention on them pretty quick, then both extremes leap out of the woodwork yelling and swinging at each other. Which pulls even more attention too it.

Its no different then, say, the kidnapping of a little blond white girl. It creates a media explosion that ripples through politics and communities, even though the actual fact of the matter is its exceedingly rare. But it doesn't stop everyone from being convinced everyone else they see on the street is a serial pedophile kidnapper pirate.

I fully realise shootings don't just happen every day every where in the US. But by the same note its difficult for me to picture being in an active shooter scenario in the *US* as opposed to one in Canada. If that makes any sense?

Hey, don't forget that that minimum wage employee is unscreened, too. For all we know, half the people working for the TSA right now are terrorists; we certainly can't say that we know they aren't. >_<

I'm certainly not offering to cup their balls to make sure ( Terrorism is contained entirely in the strotum apparently. )

[crashhelmet]

Gawd... I go away for 4 days and come back to what feels like a Tolstoy novel.

It would take me too long to try and go back and quote everything so I'm going to try and address my points clearly.

My arrests. As someone else pointed out, as a martial artist I'm expected to use the highest levels of self control. Almost as if I should be able to stop them by flexing a muscle or winking at them. Anything more and it's "OH MY GAWD!!!!! You could've killed him with your pinky!!!! LIFE SENTENCE FOR YOU!!!!" Now lets take a look at the truth of the matter. A few things called "Muscle Memory" and "Habit." My training teaches me how to disarm, how to disable, and how to kill. it takes a lot of self control to keep from doing those things, but sometimes muscle memory and habit take over and I break arms and/or legs.

The first two times I was arrested were self-defense, but I was the only one standing when the police arrived, so I got hauled away. It was eye witness reports that got me released before I saw a judge. The 3rd time, I beat the crap out of a guy that hit my girlfriend. I will be completely honest and say that "excessive" would been an understatement. I wanted him to hurt. To this day, I believe the only reasons I had the charges dropped is that my girlfriend was a cop's daughter and I had a female judge.

About this cases you cited. Every single one of them, aside form the UTEP shooter 45 years ago, were singular self-defense situations. They weren't some random civilian grabbing his gun to save a crowd. They saved their own asses. That's different.

Getting back to the UTEP incident, the ONLY reason why those men were able to help was that the local police did not have rifles to shoot him at that range. The civilians laid down suppressing fire while the cops stormed the tower to shoot and kill him with their service revolvers. It is again, not a civilian shooting and killing a hostile shooter. Besides. It happened in frickin Texas where I can crack countless jokes about the gun mentality and the abundance of gun racks in the back of pickup trucks there and how that is seemingly expected behavior.

But the recurring theme in your posts is "I am a gun owner. It is my civic duty to protect everyone. because I carry my gun around, I have the right to play Frank Castle." The both of you repeat it ad nauseum as if you you took an oath and got a free cape or a badge when you bought the weapon. I am saying that it is not.

As I've said in other threads, I grew up around guns. I am a gun owner. I live in an Open-Carry State and have my CCP. However, that gun stays at home, locked away, and unloaded. It only comes out if I'm going to the firing range, out to Front Sight for a class, or working a security detail. It's the mentality of these "Here I Come to Save The Day" people that make the rest of us gun owners look like whack jobs.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

About this cases you cited. Every single one of them, aside form the UTEP shooter 45 years ago, were singular self-defense situations. They weren't some random civilian grabbing his gun to save a crowd. They saved their own asses. That's different.

You're forgetting the Appalachian Law School shooting and the Pearl High School shooting. More to the point: they're not all that different. Ultimately what we're talking about is a group of people who are carrying weapons as a means of stopping violent crime. Sometimes it's small, sometimes it's big, but ultimately that's what we're talking about.

Here's a new one: The Colorado Springs New Life church shooting. CCP holder incapacitates shooter before he could have made it any further, prompting him to give up and take his own life. Given his lethality thus far probably a heaping helping of lives saved.

If I have the right to take a life to save my own why does that not also mean that I can take a life to save another life? If I personally feel the impulse to save someone else's life how is that not a noble thing?

Getting back to the UTEP incident, the ONLY reason why those men were able to help was that the local police did not have rifles to shoot him at that range.

This is probably going to be a theme, but, your point is, what? Even if the cops had brought some ARs with them the civilians still would have been better prepared. Assuming that the cops brought hunting/sniper rifles with them the situation would still have benefited from the fact that the civilians were there already as well as the fact that they would have been in addition to any similarly armed LEOs.

The civilians laid down suppressing fire while the cops stormed the tower to shoot and kill him with their service revolvers. It is again, not a civilian shooting and killing a hostile shooter.

Nowhere have we said that killing the BG is the objective, it's merely part of the method. The objective has and always will be to stop the killing, to bring an end to the threat by whatever means necessary. If it weren't for that suppressing fire plenty more people would have been killed and it would have taken the LEOs far longer to achieve what they did. You mistakenly assume that we're out to bag the bad guy and this is entirely erroneous. Sometimes it may be necessary to handle the worst of the situation yourself, but those situations are in no way the only important ones.

Besides. It happened in frickin Texas where I can crack countless jokes about the gun mentality and the abundance of gun racks in the back of pickup trucks there and how that is seemingly expected behavior.

And? "That was Texas therefore..." What? That civilian response to active shooters is valid only when it's expected? What about the comparable incidents in other areas?

But the recurring theme in your posts is "I am a gun owner. It is my civic duty to protect everyone.

The only one saying this is you. Guns carried abroad or kept in the home is just the topic at hand, but the theme of these messages is that anyone with the capability and opportunity to help someone in need has, as we see it, a civic duty to help. Sometimes it's a tourniquet, sometimes it's a hundred feet of rope, but sometimes it's a gun and the fact that it's a gun shouldn't change anything.

because I carry my gun around, I have the right to play Frank Castle."

Speaking of ad nauseum: Again you go back to the erroneous comparison to vigilantism.

The both of you repeat it ad nauseum as if you you took an oath and got a free cape or a badge when you bought the weapon. I am saying that it is not.

So your problem with our impulse to have a positive impact on bad situations is that you see it as cartoonish? That it's unrealistic?
Wake up and smell the roses, normal people rise to the occasion all the time, and they're lauded as heroes. But as soon as it comes to guns oh no, suddenly it's an immature fantasy. It isn't.
And until you get past your starkly hyperbolic mis-representations of our position we quite simply have no reason to listen to what you have to say. The idea of taking the initiative in a bad situation in order to help save lives is very real indeed, and unless you can demonstrate that it isn't your assertions that it isn't are meaningless.

As I've said in other threads, I grew up around guns. I am a gun owner. I live in an Open-Carry State and have my CCP. However, that gun stays at home, locked away, and unloaded. It only comes out if I'm going to the firing range, out to Front Sight for a class, or working a security detail. It's the mentality of these "Here I Come to Save The Day" people that make the rest of us gun owners look like whack jobs.

Personally I think it's the crackpot militants stockpiling canned beans in what they'd like to think are woodland fortresses that are giving gun owners a bad name but let's get to the point at hand, as they're generally minding their own business in said fortresses anyway.
I'm going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are willing to shell out for a CCP and not use it, except I infer as part of your job.

The question I ask of you is this:
What is it that separates a scenario in which you use that weapon as part of your job and a scenario in which you use that weapon outside of it?
If you are forced to use that weapon to protect yourself or someone else as part of your job, how is using that weapon to protect yourself or someone else outside of said job any different?

Is it the salary? is it the badge if indeed there is one?
Again your argument comes back to a seeming insistence that to do good is only possible if you are payed to do it, and anyone not getting payed is somehow lesser than those who are.

[Vash113]

Gawd... I go away for 4 days and come back to what feels like a Tolstoy novel.

It would take me too long to try and go back and quote everything so I'm going to try and address my points clearly.

My arrests. As someone else pointed out, as a martial artist I'm expected to use the highest levels of self control. Almost as if I should be able to stop them by flexing a muscle or winking at them. Anything more and it's "OH MY GAWD!!!!! You could've killed him with your pinky!!!! LIFE SENTENCE FOR YOU!!!!" Now lets take a look at the truth of the matter. A few things called "Muscle Memory" and "Habit." My training teaches me how to disarm, how to disable, and how to kill. it takes a lot of self control to keep from doing those things, but sometimes muscle memory and habit take over and I break arms and/or legs.

The first two times I was arrested were self-defense, but I was the only one standing when the police arrived, so I got hauled away. It was eye witness reports that got me released before I saw a judge. The 3rd time, I beat the crap out of a guy that hit my girlfriend. I will be completely honest and say that "excessive" would been an understatement. I wanted him to hurt. To this day, I believe the only reasons I had the charges dropped is that my girlfriend was a cop's daughter and I had a female judge.

Interesting stories but they do not at all prove that self-defense is a crime as you were trying to argue earlier.

About this cases you cited. Every single one of them, aside form the UTEP shooter 45 years ago, were singular self-defense situations. They weren't some random civilian grabbing his gun to save a crowd. They saved their own asses. That's different.

Incorrect, there is nothing at all different about them. In all cases they were about defense of self and/or others with firearms. That's it, you cannot seperate the issues because they are in essence the same thing, armed civilians stopping dangerous criminals. Whether the person(s) protected are few or many or even just one it is no different.

Getting back to the UTEP incident, the ONLY reason why those men were able to help was that the local police did not have rifles to shoot him at that range. The civilians laid down suppressing fire while the cops stormed the tower to shoot and kill him with their service revolvers. It is again, not a civilian shooting and killing a hostile shooter.

The very notion that all defensive firearm use equates to shooting and killing an agressor by a civilian is just plain outrageous. Actual woundings make up around 1% or less of total defensive gun uses, deaths 17% of that 1% or .017% of the total number of defensive gun uses each year. It isn't about shooting and killing anyone. Anti-gun lobyists love to throw around the notion that every gun owner secretly wants to be the hero bagging the bad guy but that is utterly erroneous and false.

As for the UTEP shooting itself the Civilians were there quite a bit earlier than the Cops and were able to start suppressing the shooter before the law enforcement officers could arrive and take charge of the situation. You also seem to have forgotten that of the four man "strike team" that made it to the clock tower and took down the shooter, one of them was an armed civilian. The cops in charge of the situation also commended the civilians for their aid in ending the killing spree.

Besides. It happened in frickin Texas where I can crack countless jokes about the gun mentality and the abundance of gun racks in the back of pickup trucks there and how that is seemingly expected behavior.

Yet I do not see drastically more people getting shot up in Texas and certainly no greater percentage of mass shootings and certainly nothing remotely close to the blood bathed streets that so many claim would come with significant gun ownership. Besides I've seen gun racks in the backs of trucks and much the same culture and mentality from upstate New York all the way down to Florida, the Texans are not the only ones who actively make use of their rights.

But the recurring theme in your posts is "I am a gun owner. It is my civic duty to protect everyone. because I carry my gun around, I have the right to play Frank Castle." The both of you repeat it ad nauseum as if you you took an oath and got a free cape or a badge when you bought the weapon. I am saying that it is not.

Really? I don't recall anything of the sort coming from either Wingates or I, seems like you just concocted that yourself. In fact neither of us have a concealed carry liscence and neither of us actually own a firearm. Thus your assumption here, while telling, is utterly unfounded.

As for civic duty, that encompases far more than protection. We also consider it a civic duty to at least attempt to offer aid in any kind of emergency, from fire, injury, drowning, car accident, whatever the case may be. Apathy is the enemy of civil society, when capable people choose to do nothing, tragedy is the result.

As I've said in other threads, I grew up around guns. I am a gun owner. I live in an Open-Carry State and have my CCP. However, that gun stays at home, locked away, and unloaded. It only comes out if I'm going to the firing range, out to Front Sight for a class, or working a security detail. It's the mentality of these "Here I Come to Save The Day" people that make the rest of us gun owners look like whack jobs.

Honestly I think its the people that put words in other gun owners mouths that make the rest look bad but hey, whatever floats your boat. Just don't expect anyone to actually be persuaded by arguments that refer to others as "whack jobs" or "vigilanties" because attempting to ridicule or undermine the character of others is far from a convincing argument.

On the other hand, as Wingates pointed out, it seems simply sad to insinuate that an action is only good if one is being paid to do it.

[crashhelmet]

Interesting stories but they do not at all prove that self-defense is a crime as you were trying to argue earlier.

Self-defense is a defense. Violence is a crime. In my case, Assault and Battery, Aggravated Assault, Assault with Intent to Cause Bodily Harm. Take your pick. I'm sure it goes by many other names and has many other classifications and levels from state to state. After those are weeded through, the DA tries to see if what was done was bad enough to warrant manslaughter and/or attempted manslaughter charges. Proven Self-Defense is what got the charges against me dropped in the first 2 cases. Luck got them dropped in the third.

Incorrect, there is nothing at all different about them. In all cases they were about defense of self and/or others with firearms. That's it, you cannot seperate the issues because they are in essence the same thing, armed civilians stopping dangerous criminals. Whether the person(s) protected are few or many or even just one it is no different.

There is a big difference between me shooting someone trying to mug me and me trying to take down someone attacking a crowd. Especially if there is no imminent threat to my own well being.

The very notion that all defensive firearm use equates to shooting and killing an agressor by a civilian is just plain outrageous. Actual woundings make up around 1% or less of total defensive gun uses, deaths 17% of that 1% or .017% of the total number of defensive gun uses each year. It isn't about shooting and killing anyone. Anti-gun lobyists love to throw around the notion that every gun owner secretly wants to be the hero bagging the bad guy but that is utterly erroneous and false.

But that is exactly what the two of you have been promoting. That it's your civic duty to shoot and kill the guy so that you can stop him.

As for the UTEP shooting itself the Civilians were there quite a bit earlier than the Cops and were able to start suppressing the shooter before the law enforcement officers could arrive and take charge of the situation. You also seem to have forgotten that of the four man "strike team" that made it to the clock tower and took down the shooter, one of them was an armed civilian. The cops in charge of the situation also commended the civilians for their aid in ending the killing spree.

Everything I read states that they went home and got their rifles. If it seriously took the police that long to get there, I'd be ashamed of them. Regardless though, Police Commendation doesn't justify their actions.

Really? I don't recall anything of the sort coming from either Wingates or I, seems like you just concocted that yourself. In fact neither of us have a concealed carry liscence and neither of us actually own a firearm. Thus your assumption here, while telling, is utterly unfounded.

Wait... WHAT???? So you're saying that neither of you even have a leg to stand on in this debate? Just your own personal fantasies of what the training and mentality of people that are gun owners should have? Please clarify this for me.

As for civic duty, that encompases far more than protection. We also consider it a civic duty to at least attempt to offer aid in any kind of emergency, from fire, injury, drowning, car accident, whatever the case may be. Apathy is the enemy of civil society, when capable people choose to do nothing, tragedy is the result.

This I agree with. These are all heroic actions that can be taken without putting the lives and well being of others at risk. Things you don't have to worry about panic and adrenaline causing you to shoot the wrong person.

Honestly I think its the people that put words in other gun owners mouths that make the rest look bad but hey, whatever floats your boat. Just don't expect anyone to actually be persuaded by arguments that refer to others as "whack jobs" or "vigilanties" because attempting to ridicule or undermine the character of others is far from a convincing argument.

Forgive me for thinking that anyone that thinks it's their civic duty as a gun owner to perform a role they're not trained for and willing to take the law into their own hands is a vigilante.

On the other hand, as Wingates pointed out, it seems simply sad to insinuate that an action is only good if one is being paid to do it.

I'll address that in a reply to his.

[Hyena Dandy]

Forgive me for thinking that anyone that thinks it's their civic duty as a gun owner to perform a role they're not trained for and willing to take the law into their own hands is a vigilante.

I feel its the duty of any person to attempt to defuse a dangerous situation, whether they have a gun or not. I don't know about civic duty, but I do think its a moral duty. If I think I'm capable of saving someone's life, I'll take any action I can to do that. If I have a gun, and I think it'll help, I'll use it in any way I think would help. If I don't have a gun, I won't use it, obviously, but I will still do anything I can to help.

If someone can stop a situation like that, and they do, that I think is good. If that's illegal, that doesn't change that it was good. The laws would be wrong in this case, not the action.

But that is exactly what the two of you have been promoting. That it's your civic duty to shoot and kill the guy so that you can stop him.

From what I've been getting from them, its more that what they're saying is that its your civic duty to do anything you can. I assume they wouldn't say draw your gun and shoot immediately. Presumably, you'd draw the gun, and tell the person to stop or you'll shoot them.

Though he is hardly a prestigious philosopher, Al Capone said that you'll get more with a kind word and a gun than you will with a kind word. Nobody said you had to SHOOT it.

Wait... WHAT???? So you're saying that neither of you even have a leg to stand on in this debate? Just your own personal fantasies of what the training and mentality of people that are gun owners should have? Please clarify this for me.

So should only gun owners be allowed to discuss gun use? Presumably, this is a debate. And in a debate, it is the facts that should speak the loudest. Saying they don't have a leg to stand on because they're not gun owners is ridiculous.

They've repeatedly cited facts and incidents which are entirely independent of their personal experience. They have not debated from personal experience. Their evidence may be wrong, they may be right, they may be misrepresented. But they are independent of whether or not the person bringing them up has any experience with guns. I don't think at any point they have said "This is true because I have done it." or "This is true because I have seen it."


To say they have no leg to stand on because they're not gun owners is an ad-hominem attack. They aren't debating on the basis of their experience, so their experience is irrelevant.

Debate is based on evidence. Evidence is evidence. Some of its good, some of its bad, but in a debate, it shouldn't be discounted on the basis of who brought it up.

[crashhelmet]

You're forgetting the Appalachian Law School shooting and the Pearl High School shooting. More to the point: they're not all that different. Ultimately what we're talking about is a group of people who are carrying weapons as a means of stopping violent crime. Sometimes it's small, sometimes it's big, but ultimately that's what we're talking about.

The 2 men that retrieved their weapons at the Appalachian Law School were both cops. The third man involved in it was also a cop. There are also two different stories told about that. One is that he had already put his weapon down before they got there and the other is that they ordered him to. Regardless though, they were not ordinary civilians.

Pearl High? The shooter fled once he heard sirens and crashed in the process. The principal caught up to him and put his gun to his head and held him for the few minutes it took for the cops to get to where he crashed. I'll stay open on this one. It could've gone either way. The principal's actions may have been unneeded. It's also possible that he may have been able to flee on foot. I've found nothing about his physical condition after the crash. For the sake of this debate, I'll even ignore the fact that the principal broke several state and federal laws by having his gun on campus.

Here's a new one: The Colorado Springs New Life church shooting. CCP holder incapacitates shooter before he could have made it any further, prompting him to give up and take his own life. Given his lethality thus far probably a heaping helping of lives saved.

The lady that shot him worked at the Church as Security. She wasn't some random civilian that happened to be carrying her sidearm at Church Service. She was there to fill that role specifically because of threatening letters the shooter was sending to that church. Again... No ordinary civilian.

If I have the right to take a life to save my own why does that not also mean that I can take a life to save another life? If I personally feel the impulse to save someone else's life how is that not a noble thing?

Yes and no. It's a grey area that comes down to intent and context of the situation. The UTEP "Strike Team," as you keep referring to them as, left the situation, retrieved their weapons, and came back. That is wrong in so many ways. That is without a doubt, vigilante action. While it may be noble to sacrifice yourself, it's still illegal to do what they did.

This is probably going to be a theme, but, your point is, what? Even if the cops had brought some ARs with them the civilians still would have been better prepared. Assuming that the cops brought hunting/sniper rifles with them the situation would still have benefited from the fact that the civilians were there already as well as the fact that they would have been in addition to any similarly armed LEOs.

While this incident may have occurred years before the first SWAT team was assembled, police forces are still trained in situations like this. If they had the proper weaponry, they would've done what the "strike team" did and provided cover fire to get bystanders out of the area and allow the others to breach the tower. But again, while it may be noble, it's still illegal.

Nowhere have we said that killing the BG is the objective, it's merely part of the method. The objective has and always will be to stop the killing, to bring an end to the threat by whatever means necessary. If it weren't for that suppressing fire plenty more people would have been killed and it would have taken the LEOs far longer to achieve what they did. You mistakenly assume that we're out to bag the bad guy and this is entirely erroneous. Sometimes it may be necessary to handle the worst of the situation yourself, but those situations are in no way the only important ones.

And Robin Hood was still a criminal. Try and sugar coat it all you want. It is still illegal. It is still people taking the law into their own hands and involving themselves in situations they're not trained for. While they may think they're doing a service by saving people, they're still at risk for causing more harm than good. Police and military are trained for situations like these. They're trained to take targets when their adrenaline is pumping, their heart is racing, and there's panic everywhere.

The only one saying this is you. Guns carried abroad or kept in the home is just the topic at hand, but the theme of these messages is that anyone with the capability and opportunity to help someone in need has, as we see it, a civic duty to help. Sometimes it's a tourniquet, sometimes it's a hundred feet of rope, but sometimes it's a gun and the fact that it's a gun shouldn't change anything.

But it does. First off, it's not illegal for me to use a tourniquet on someone in danger of bleeding to death. Nor is it illegal for me to tow someone out of a ditch, charge into their burning home to save their child, or dive into a lake to keep them from drowning.

However, it is illegal to bring a gun within 100 yards of a school, to discharge a gun in public, or to involve oneself in a police matter. Once again add in the variables that John Q Public isn't trained for, and God forbid he accidentally shoot a civilian and not have the city's insurance policy to back him up. And that's really what it comes down to.

Shoot the shooter and you're a hero. Accidentally shoot a bystander and you're going to jail for a long time, while getting your ass sued to kingdom come by your victim and/or their family. No amount of "I thought i was doing the right thing" or "I was doing my civic duty" will save them from that without a great lawyer and a sympathetic jury.

Speaking of ad nauseum: Again you go back to the erroneous comparison to vigilantism.

It's becoming very potayto, potahto.

So your problem with our impulse to have a positive impact on bad situations is that you see it as cartoonish? That it's unrealistic?
Wake up and smell the roses, normal people rise to the occasion all the time, and they're lauded as heroes. But as soon as it comes to guns oh no, suddenly it's an immature fantasy. It isn't.
And until you get past your starkly hyperbolic mis-representations of our position we quite simply have no reason to listen to what you have to say. The idea of taking the initiative in a bad situation in order to help save lives is very real indeed, and unless you can demonstrate that it isn't your assertions that it isn't are meaningless.

Not too cartoonish as much as it is too "Hollywood." Read my earlier rebuttal to your same argument a few paragraphs up.

Personally I think it's the crackpot militants stockpiling canned beans in what they'd like to think are woodland fortresses that are giving gun owners a bad name but let's get to the point at hand, as they're generally minding their own business in said fortresses anyway.
I'm going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are willing to shell out for a CCP and not use it, except I infer as part of your job.

The question I ask of you is this:
What is it that separates a scenario in which you use that weapon as part of your job and a scenario in which you use that weapon outside of it?
If you are forced to use that weapon to protect yourself or someone else as part of your job, how is using that weapon to protect yourself or someone else outside of said job any different?

Is it the salary? is it the badge if indeed there is one?
Again your argument comes back to a seeming insistence that to do good is only possible if you are payed to do it, and anyone not getting payed is somehow lesser than those who are.

Logic and common sense would make one believe that if they're being paid to do the job, that they're properly trained and certified for it. That it becomes the sole reason why they're carrying in the first place.

Yes, I have my CCP strictly because the few clients I work security for request it. They feel safer knowing that I and my partner are carrying and depending on the situation, we could be wearing a suit with the sidearm concealed or in plain clothes with it open. This job isn't my bread and butter, it's contractual work done a few times a year when said clients need it. In all honesty, these clients are long time friends of mine that pay me for a job I'd willingly do for free. But never have I ever had to pull it, let alone discharge it, while working. Otherwise, if I wanted to carry, I'd simply open-carry as my State Constitution allows me to.

[crashhelmet]

So should only gun owners be allowed to discuss gun use? Presumably, this is a debate. And in a debate, it is the facts that should speak the loudest. Saying they don't have a leg to stand on because they're not gun owners is ridiculous.

They've repeatedly cited facts and incidents which are entirely independent of their personal experience. They have not debated from personal experience. Their evidence may be wrong, they may be right, they may be misrepresented. But they are independent of whether or not the person bringing them up has any experience with guns. I don't think at any point they have said "This is true because I have done it." or "This is true because I have seen it."


To say they have no leg to stand on because they're not gun owners is an ad-hominem attack. They aren't debating on the basis of their experience, so their experience is irrelevant.

Debate is based on evidence. Evidence is evidence. Some of its good, some of its bad, but in a debate, it shouldn't be discounted on the basis of who brought it up.

This is a particular topic that requires experience more than examples. Especially since most examples provided have been debunked. It would be like arguing for or against seat belts and never driven in a car, let alone used a seat belt itself. Examples and statistics can be used on both sides but don't mean much when they can be taken out of context or manipulated.

They have cited repeatedly in this thread and others about the the extra training you get with a CCP. How do they know if they don't have one? There's an awful lot that goes on in that 16 hour class required to get it. Reading the descriptions from biased web sites and publications does not make one an expert or even knowledgeable enough to contend in the debate. The other part of it is like talking about would'ves, could'ves, and should'ves like Monday Morning Quarterbacks.

[Hyena Dandy]

The problem with saying they're citing statistics from biased websites is that this debate is so contentious that you'd be hard pressed to find a non-biased website.

I consider myself a relatively unbiased observer here. I'm in favor of firearms, I'm also in favor of control of firearms.

And I think the examples haven't been debunked to their satisfaction... They haven't completely to my satisfaction, either.



I've been trying to follow this and sometimes I feel like you and WinVash (sounds like a computer program) are not actually debating the same thing...

Perhaps we could all step back and say what our positions are, so we can get back to attacking those positions.

[Vash113]

Self-defense is a defense. Violence is a crime. In my case, Assault and Battery, Aggravated Assault, Assault with Intent to Cause Bodily Harm. Take your pick. I'm sure it goes by many other names and has many other classifications and levels from state to state. After those are weeded through, the DA tries to see if what was done was bad enough to warrant manslaughter and/or attempted manslaughter charges. Proven Self-Defense is what got the charges against me dropped in the first 2 cases. Luck got them dropped in the third.

Violence is not a crime when it is a justified use of force in self-defense. I honestly didn't think that was such a difficult subject to grasp and it is exactly what many laws state, Castle Doctrine is the most obvious specification and enumeration of the exact circumstances of justified use of force. Even law enforcement officers have to show their use of force was justified but that doe snot mean any and all force is unjustified.

You've shown nothing beyond some personal anecdotes as proof for your arguments, if you really think all use of force equals vigilantism then prove it. Lets see a law or a court case ruling where someone acting in defense of themselves or others, whether they used a gun or no, was tried and convicted for vigilantism.

There is a big difference between me shooting someone trying to mug me and me trying to take down someone attacking a crowd. Especially if there is no imminent threat to my own well being.

Actually according to the law a mass shooting is an imminent threat to your own well being regardless of whether your being currently shot at or not. The reason being that there are a great many dangers involved in such a situation, such as being trampled, the mere presence of the violent attacker creates a situation that is inherently dangerous to all those in the area. Moreover self-defense encompasses not just the defense of the individual but also the protection of others in the vicinity.

But that is exactly what the two of you have been promoting. That it's your civic duty to shoot and kill the guy so that you can stop him.

Wrong, as Hyena Dandy said, we have never claimed it is a civic duty to shoot and kill anyone. Sometimes ending a violent threat can result in such a course of action, but it is not the first or only course of action when responding to a violent threat. Even acting in the defense of oneself, shooting and killing the aggressor is not the objective nor is taking the law into ones own hands.

Both of those assumptions are completely without basis, while you keep making that claim you have yet to support them with any evidence from anyone in this discussion or the gun rights lobby in general.

Everything I read states that they went home and got their rifles. If it seriously took the police that long to get there, I'd be ashamed of them. Regardless though, Police Commendation doesn't justify their actions.

Regardless eye witness statements place the Civilians at the scene long before the police got there, as even having to go home (though not all did) they were still able to respond within a couple of minutes while it took the police around twice as long to arrive and assess the situation. The police cannot just teleport to a the location of a violent attack, in some instances the very presence of fleeing bystanders can hamper police and emergency response but that is neither here nor there.

As for Police Commendation, I'd say it does justify their actions, if law enforcement applauds the actions of these people then it's a pretty good indication they weren't doing anything illegal. The lack of arrest or charges against them also shows as much.

I mean really, if one puts so much stock in the training and abilities of Law Enforcement personnel why not trust what they say?

Wait... WHAT???? So you're saying that neither of you even have a leg to stand on in this debate? Just your own personal fantasies of what the training and mentality of people that are gun owners should have? Please clarify this for me.

So, let me get this straight, research and facts don't matter only personal anecdotes? One must be a member of a group to understand and/or support them? So I couldn't support Gay Rights if I'm not gay? I couldn't support Woman's Rights if I'm not female? I couldn't support immigration if I'm not an immigrant? That makes absolutely no sense.

Furthermore these repeated claims of fantasies and other character attacks are getting extremely tiresome and undermine the very capacity for cogent debate.

Our position is based off of our extensive research into gun control laws, crime rates, violent attack and shooting statistics, blogs and video blogs from both sides of the debate, published scientific articles and surveys on the issue, the arguments from the Brady Campaign, Democratic and Republican platforms, NRA, Masad Ayuub, the nutnfancyproject and much, much more. In short: Empirical Observation of peer reviewed science, the law and logical argument. What do you have?

This I agree with. These are all heroic actions that can be taken without putting the lives and well being of others at risk. Things you don't have to worry about panic and adrenaline causing you to shoot the wrong person.

Unfortunately I must disagree there. All actions in any dangerous situation can put others lives and well being at risk. If you run into a burning building to try and save someone but don't know how to do it safely you are not just endangering yourself but those you are attempting to save. Knowledge like to hug the floor and stay beneath the smoke, not to open doors into burning rooms that would cause an explosion. Attempting to perform emergency first aid without the proper skill can also put the very life at risk you are attempting to save, the last thing you want to do is overdo CPR and wind up breaking the persons ribs and potentially causing serious or even fatal internal injury. Even attempting to save someone that's drowning can get both yourself and the endangered individual killed if you don't know how to do it properly.

There is nothing about guns that makes their use in a dangerous situation even worse than improperly using any other skill or action. Heck even if you attempt to tackle the shooter and in the attempt are shot along with someone around or behind you, guess what, you just got someone killed and all without the use of a gun on your own part!

Not to mention of course that the very concern of panic and adrenaline causing the wrong person to be shot is pretty well without basis. It just hasn't really happened, no armed civilian has so far responded to a violent threat and shot and killed an innocent bystander. It just hasn't happened.

Forgive me for thinking that anyone that thinks it's their civic duty as a gun owner to perform a role they're not trained for and willing to take the law into their own hands is a vigilante.

Well no, that's not a notion worth forgiving because it is crass, inane and wrong. It misrepresents the entire gun rights support movement and gun owners in general. No-one said anything about taking the law into ones own hands, that's entirely your notion. Additionally you assume gun owners are untrained and unskilled in performing such actions and yet have simply shown absolutely no indication of this at all. This whole argument of yours is targeting a non-existent straw man.

From what I've been getting from them, its more that what they're saying is that its your civic duty to do anything you can. I assume they wouldn't say draw your gun and shoot immediately. Presumably, you'd draw the gun, and tell the person to stop or you'll shoot them.

Though he is hardly a prestigious philosopher, Al Capone said that you'll get more with a kind word and a gun than you will with a kind word. Nobody said you had to SHOOT it.

Precisely our point.

So should only gun owners be allowed to discuss gun use? Presumably, this is a debate. And in a debate, it is the facts that should speak the loudest. Saying they don't have a leg to stand on because they're not gun owners is ridiculous.

They've repeatedly cited facts and incidents which are entirely independent of their personal experience. They have not debated from personal experience. Their evidence may be wrong, they may be right, they may be misrepresented. But they are independent of whether or not the person bringing them up has any experience with guns. I don't think at any point they have said "This is true because I have done it." or "This is true because I have seen it."

To say they have no leg to stand on because they're not gun owners is an ad-hominem attack. They aren't debating on the basis of their experience, so their experience is irrelevant.

Debate is based on evidence. Evidence is evidence. Some of its good, some of its bad, but in a debate, it shouldn't be discounted on the basis of who brought it up.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

This is a particular topic that requires experience more than examples. Especially since most examples provided have been debunked. It would be like arguing for or against seat belts and never driven in a car, let alone used a seat belt itself. Examples and statistics can be used on both sides but don't mean much when they can be taken out of context or manipulated.

On the contrary, none of the examples we have provided have been debunked, not-a-single-one. No evidence or legal precedent or much of anything has been provided to counter the wealth of material Wingates, I and others have brought to the debate. Personal concerns and criticisms do not counter facts and peer reviewed research no matter how hard you try. Character attacks do not invalidate data no matter how many times they are made.

Additionally what on earth does having driven a car or used a seat belt have with knowing that they work? Research and statistics show that car deaths dropped dramatically after the implementation of seat belts, you don't even have to have ever even seen a car to look that one up. Personal experience is not all that important and certainly does not outweigh facts and data.

Lastly why is this a subject that requires experience over facts? Even that claim is unsupported, explain what in the nature of this discussion over any other necessitates personal involvement and eliminates the very possibility of objective knowledge and participation.

To be perfectly frank, we don't even know that you own a gun or have a CCP, we just have your claim but no reason to accept it as valid or true and it does not at all make a valid argument. Personal anecdotes are just simply useless and prove nothing. They make nice soundbites maybe but that's it. Bring on the facts, if you have any.

They have cited repeatedly in this thread and others about the the extra training you get with a CCP. How do they know if they don't have one? There's an awful lot that goes on in that 16 hour class required to get it.

The same way anyone knows anything, by asking and looking up the information... what you think the NRA doesn't hold classes? The state does not make the requirements and training for acquiring a CCP secret, you don't need Code Word Clearance to call and ask for it. A world class mystery this stuff is not.

Reading the descriptions from biased web sites and publications does not make one an expert or even knowledgeable enough to contend in the debate. The other part of it is like talking about would'ves, could'ves, and should'ves like Monday Morning Quarterbacks.

That just doesn't make any sense, personal anecdotes make one an expert yet facts and research are utterly unimportant? I'm afraid that is not at all how debates work, you don't win by pulling out your gun store receipt. We have provided a great deal of evidence in support of every claim and assertion we have made from crime statistics to population surveys and much more all while seeing virtually nothing in return.

To try and argue that we have "no leg to stand on" because we don't own a gun or have a CCP is just nonsensical and, as Hyena Dandy said, ridiculous.

[Vash113]

The 2 men that retrieved their weapons at the Appalachian Law School were both cops. The third man involved in it was also a cop. There are also two different stories told about that. One is that he had already put his weapon down before they got there and the other is that they ordered him to. Regardless though, they were not ordinary civilians.

Off duty cops out of jurisdiction have no more legal power than Civilians, furthermore they do not necessarily have any more training in responding to such threats than Civilians do so yes they were to all intents and purposes ordinary civilians in that situation.

Pearl High? The shooter fled once he heard sirens and crashed in the process. The principal caught up to him and put his gun to his head and held him for the few minutes it took for the cops to get to where he crashed. I'll stay open on this one. It could've gone either way. The principal's actions may have been unneeded. It's also possible that he may have been able to flee on foot. I've found nothing about his physical condition after the crash. For the sake of this debate, I'll even ignore the fact that the principal broke several state and federal laws by having his gun on campus.

Actually at the time of the incident the Principal had his firearm in his car which, thanks to certain Castle Doctrine, is an extension of ones home and legal domain therefore a valid place to store a firearm despite laws against possession in a gun free zone. Some legislation since then has changed that but I have not seen anything to indicate he actually broke any state or federal laws by keeping his firearm in his car. Furthermore saying the situation could go either way is a pointless and an entirely invalid argument, it is ignoring the effective resolution of the situation in favor of what might have been however a solid argument that does not make.

The lady that shot him worked at the Church as Security. She wasn't some random civilian that happened to be carrying her sidearm at Church Service. She was there to fill that role specifically because of threatening letters the shooter was sending to that church. Again... No ordinary civilian.

She was a civilian church goer that volunteered to act as security for the church, there is no indication that I can find that she was a professional security guard or that she had any additional training what so ever so yes she was also an ordinary civilian.

Again the notion that self-defense with a firearm is only valid if one is being paid to do it, however that notion also appears to be entirely divorced from relevant skill or training level. A paycheck or volunteer job title does not suddenly justify what would otherwise be unjustified, nor does it elimination justification for the actions of those without a paycheck or title.

Yes and no. It's a grey area that comes down to intent and context of the situation. The UTEP "Strike Team," as you keep referring to them as, left the situation, retrieved their weapons, and came back. That is wrong in so many ways. That is without a doubt, vigilante action. While it may be noble to sacrifice yourself, it's still illegal to do what they did.

Prove it, you keep making these claims but have pointed out not a single, I repeat not a single law or case where such actions have been illegal. There is nothing to at all indicate the actions of those civilians were those of vigilantes, not even slightly. None of them that I could find actually left the scene to retrieve their weapons, they crossed a street to their car and/or home and returned. That does not make them vigilantes nor did it actually remove them from the near vicinity of the shooting and such a claim is just plain insulting to those peoples actions.

You say these actions were wrong in so many ways, or that it was illegal to do what they did, so I say, prove it. What is wrong about what they did, how is it illegal, what law did they break. Because frankly none were charged for vigilantism, illegal use of force, illegal possession of a firearm, illegal discharge of a firearm, attempted murder, or any of the myriad other laws you could claim they broke, not a single one.

Furthermore please read my posts properly before responding, I never called the Civilians that responded to the UTEP shooting a "Strike Team," rather I used that term to reference the four men that actually did infiltrate the clock tower and put a stop to the shooting, of which one of them was a Civilian, a man named Allen Crum. If you are going to try to counter my arguments it helps to at least get them correct.

While this incident may have occurred years before the first SWAT team was assembled, police forces are still trained in situations like this. If they had the proper weaponry, they would've done what the "strike team" did and provided cover fire to get bystanders out of the area and allow the others to breach the tower. But again, while it may be noble, it's still illegal.

Again you have provided no proof and I see nothing to indicate their actions were illegal, nothing at all. They acted heroically in the defense of themselves and others and even received commendation from the Austin police department, were not charged for anything and received nothing but praise following the incident. If their actions were really those of illegal vigilantes then that would not be the case, if you wish to make that claim then provide some law that they broke and were prosecuted for. Otherwise your claim is completely invalid.

Secondly there is no indication that I can find that normal law enforcement officers are trained in such situations. They are trained to clear a house and shoot a gun but I have seen no indication that they receive specific training to deal with mass shootings. In fact even SWAT teams are not equipped to perform the actions that the Civilians did in the UTEP shooting, with the exception of a few rifle armed snipers the standard issue SWAT weapons are carbines and submachine guns that would not have had the accuracy over range to suppress the shooter in the UTEP incident.

Lastly you say the Civilians were doing exactly what police would in that situation if they had the capability? Well that, at least, is correct.

And Robin Hood was still a criminal. Try and sugar coat it all you want. It is still illegal. It is still people taking the law into their own hands and involving themselves in situations they're not trained for. While they may think they're doing a service by saving people, they're still at risk for causing more harm than good. Police and military are trained for situations like these. They're trained to take targets when their adrenaline is pumping, their heart is racing, and there's panic everywhere.

Well first and foremost making an argument based off of a fictional character is hardly moving. Secondly, once again, I've found nothing to indicate that Police and Military are trained to address such situations. Training in marksmanship and shooting in both law enforcement and the military do not include a standard for dealing with adrenaline pumping situations. How do I know this? Well first and foremost like many things these are not great secrets. Secondly I know people. In fact, if you want to deal with personal anecdotes, one of my uncles was a Drill Instructor for the United States Army for the better part of a decade. While wargames were conducted from time to time they did not accurately address the stress and issues of fighting and thinking effectively under duress, nor does poor performance prevent a recruit from continuing training, they will just keep having that recruit attempt the shooting qualifications until by either gradual improvement or luck the individual manages to score the minimum required and then off they go. A week of a few hours class instruction and range time every day is all most Soldiers get when it comes to marksmanship training, Law Enforcement training regimens are somewhat more varied but not drastically better.

But it does. First off, it's not illegal for me to use a tourniquet on someone in danger of bleeding to death. Nor is it illegal for me to tow someone out of a ditch, charge into their burning home to save their child, or dive into a lake to keep them from drowning.

It also isn't illegal to shoot someone gunning down civilians, you keep saying it but haven't provided any proof. Not to mention it is illegal to apply a tourniquet without permission even if it means the person bleeds to death.

Additionally there is absolutely no justification to claim shooting an armed attacker is any more a use of illegal force than tackling them and binding them against their will. But nobody is calling the people in the Tuscon shooting to task for assault now are they?

However, it is illegal to bring a gun within 100 yards of a school, to discharge a gun in public, or to involve oneself in a police matter. Once again add in the variables that John Q Public isn't trained for,

All of these laws are superseded by the rights of self protection, in fact this right is so potent in our law that it can include shooting and killing police officers that are attempting to illegally arrest, detain or harm you. Thus the term justified use of lethal force, if lethal force is justified then it also justifies the necessity to discharge a firearm or bring it into a gun free zone like a school. We have seen this time and time again such as the UTEP and Appalachian Law School, the Pearl High School and many, many, many other such incidents. Despite your claims however none of these individuals were charged for these actions because they were justified uses of force.

and God forbid he accidentally shoot a civilian and not have the city's insurance policy to back him up. And that's really what it comes down to.

That's what it really comes down to!?!?!? Insurance policies! Civil protection, danger to self or others, legal precedent, all of that is superseded by law enforcement having an insurance policy?

Shoot the shooter and you're a hero. Accidentally shoot a bystander and you're going to jail for a long time, while getting your ass sued to kingdom come by your victim and/or their family. No amount of "I thought i was doing the right thing" or "I was doing my civic duty" will save them from that without a great lawyer and a sympathetic jury.

Fortunately that is an extremely rare occurrence and no innocent bystanders have been killed by a civilian responding to a lethal threat with a firearm. Nevertheless the onus is on the civilian shooter not to miss now isn't it? Just like a cop, or a soldier for that matter. Besides the legal justified use of force would almost certainly prevent jail time though civil suits and damages are likely they would also be justified. A mistake is a mistake but it doesn't make the action inherently wrong.

It's becoming very potayto, potahto.

That's like saying mixing up the words sex and rape or surgery and torture is potayto, potahto.

Not too cartoonish as much as it is too "Hollywood." Read my earlier rebuttal to your same argument a few paragraphs up.

You didn't rebut the argument any more accurately a few paragraphs up. Actually from a debate standpoint you haven't provided a justified or verifiable rebuttal to any of our arguments at all.

Logic and common sense would make one believe that if they're being paid to do the job, that they're properly trained and certified for it. That it becomes the sole reason why they're carrying in the first place.

Actually that is neither logical or common sense. Being paid to do something doesn't mean your trained and certified to do it. Plenty of people work as security guards, contractors and many other such disciplines without actual training or certification, just because you make money doing something does not necessitate that you do it well or have received the proper instruction. On the other hand anyone forking out the money and going through the extensive process of acquiring a quality firearm and attendant permits and CCP license is more likely to have also invested in the proper training. Note I said more likely not necessarily, neither group is universally going to be completely trained and certified to fulfill these roles. However that is not justification to favor one over the other.

Not to mention there is also a chance that individuals signing up to be police are also looking to be heroes and that is why they are doing it and carrying a firearm. You can't make the accusation against one group without it also applying to the other, but the chance of such individuals existence is once again not a justification to throw out the baby with the bathwater so to speak.

Yes, I have my CCP strictly because the few clients I work security for request it. They feel safer knowing that I and my partner are carrying and depending on the situation, we could be wearing a suit with the sidearm concealed or in plain clothes with it open. This job isn't my bread and butter, it's contractual work done a few times a year when said clients need it. In all honesty, these clients are long time friends of mine that pay me for a job I'd willingly do for free. But never have I ever had to pull it, let alone discharge it, while working. Otherwise, if I wanted to carry, I'd simply open-carry as my State Constitution allows me to.

So your for open carry but against concealed carry because concealing necessitates a vigilante mindset? That doesn't make sense. Moreover your saying the pay check is more important than the intent?

Lastly you admit yourself that people feel safer when there are concealed firearms around should a dangerous event occur, seems like a common enough trend to validate the usefulness of the action.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The 2 men that retrieved their weapons at the Appalachian Law School were both cops. The third man involved in it was also a cop. There are also two different stories told about that. One is that he had already put his weapon down before they got there and the other is that they ordered him to. Regardless though, they were not ordinary civilians.

Never claimed they were ordinary, in fact the fact that they intervened where others didn't is testament enough to that. The point you consistently fail to address is that they were in every legal and practical sense civilians as they were not only off-duty but incredibly out of jurisdiction. They actions were taken as civilians, not as police officers.

Pearl High? The shooter fled once he heard sirens and crashed in the process. The principal caught up to him and put his gun to his head and held him for the few minutes it took for the cops to get to where he crashed. I'll stay open on this one. It could've gone either way. The principal's actions may have been unneeded. It's also possible that he may have been able to flee on foot. I've found nothing about his physical condition after the crash. For the sake of this debate, I'll even ignore the fact that the principal broke several state and federal laws by having his gun on campus.

Actually reports vary between the principal using his own vehicle to disable the shooter's and apprehended him following this or that the principal confronted the shooter prior to and thereby causing the crash.
Either way he was instrumental in foiling an escape that would have put lives in danger.

The lady that shot him worked at the Church as Security. She wasn't some random civilian that happened to be carrying her sidearm at Church Service. She was there to fill that role specifically because of threatening letters the shooter was sending to that church. Again... No ordinary civilian.

According to the information at hand, plenty ordinary. Assam was a churchgoer who volunteered as a security guard in light of the recent threats. There's no indication anywhere that she was a professional.

Yes and no. It's a grey area that comes down to intent and context of the situation. The UTEP "Strike Team," as you keep referring to them as, left the situation, retrieved their weapons, and came back. That is wrong in so many ways. That is without a doubt, vigilante action. While it may be noble to sacrifice yourself, it's still illegal to do what they did.

Actually if you bothered to read our posts thoroughly you'd see that we referred only to the four people (three cops and one civilian) who entered the tower as the strike team because that in essence is exactly what they were. Moreover, you again insist that these actions are vigilantism without providing any support. These people weren't looking for trouble, they merely reacted to a crisis and there is no law that makes these actions illegal. You say it over and over but never have you actually proven this.

While this incident may have occurred years before the first SWAT team was assembled, police forces are still trained in situations like this. If they had the proper weaponry, they would've done what the "strike team" did and provided cover fire to get bystanders out of the area and allow the others to breach the tower. But again, while it may be noble, it's still illegal.

I can find no indication that police officers are trained to deal with barricaded mass-shooting marksman situations. In essence you're admitting that the untrained civilians did exactly what modern trained officers would do, far from debunking anything on that note. And again, no law says that these actions were illegal so until you can demonstrate that this claim is somehow supported or validated excuse me if I don't take your word for it.

And Robin Hood was still a criminal. Try and sugar coat it all you want. It is still illegal. It is still people taking the law into their own hands and involving themselves in situations they're not trained for. While they may think they're doing a service by saving people, they're still at risk for causing more harm than good. Police and military are trained for situations like these. They're trained to take targets when their adrenaline is pumping, their heart is racing, and there's panic everywhere.

Way to source an irrelevant fictional character who has nothing to do with the debate. Again, prove that it's illegal and I'll listen to you. You keep falsely equating personal and public safety with the law. They are not the same thing and this is probably the most vital of your misconceptions. Vigilantees are taking the legal system's role upon themselves, creating trouble where the was none, actively looking for it and causing it. This couldn't have less to do with armed citizens responding to violent threats instigated against themselves or others. Moreover neither you not anyone else has been able to substantiate that the potential for an armed citizen's actions to make things worse have manifested much if at all not even getting close to showing that they outweigh the posetives.
Last time I checked police and military are trained to hit targets and actual stress simulation is rare indeed. Other than that, police get some target discrimination and military get some courses where stress is applied but ultimately neither deal with the stress of selecting and engaging targets whilst under attack.
Even so, it's readily apparent that people are more than capable of doing just fine without it, so I don't see where you're trying to go here.

But it does. First off, it's not illegal for me to use a tourniquet on someone in danger of bleeding to death. Nor is it illegal for me to tow someone out of a ditch, charge into their burning home to save their child, or dive into a lake to keep them from drowning.

Neither is using justified force to stop a violent attack, a point that you still haven't addressed.

However, it is illegal to bring a gun within 100 yards of a school, to discharge a gun in public, or to involve oneself in a police matter. Once again add in the variables that John Q Public isn't trained for, and God forbid he accidentally shoot a civilian and not have the city's insurance policy to back him up. And that's really what it comes down to.

All of those laws are subject to justification. Also, you're mixing up "involve" and "interfere". It's illegal to deliberately get in the cop's way, nowhere is it illegal to help them.
Moreover the majority of variables none of which you deign to enumerate are outside the purview of police officer's training as well. What are cops trained to do? recognize threats, hit their target, and that's about it. Neither of which are exactly rocket science nor are they outside the ability of civilians to train for.
Again, the possibility of a bystander getting hit has yet to manifest, so I have to say it's therefore far less important than those factors that have.
Mostly though, insurance? that's what's important? So, taking the initiative to save another person's life or my own is bad because I'm not insured.

Shoot the shooter and you're a hero. Accidentally shoot a bystander and you're going to jail for a long time, while getting your ass sued to kingdom come by your victim and/or their family. No amount of "I thought i was doing the right thing" or "I was doing my civic duty" will save them from that without a great lawyer and a sympathetic jury.

Maybe if you could pony up an instance in which the latter has happened I'd be inclined to let that occlude the former. So far the grand majority of armed civilians who are charged or convicted of anything have been due to things like inadvertently entering jurisdictions where some feature is banned or where the DA and/or jury are mollycoddling over what constitutes justified force.
I don't see why I should let my legal system's lack of perfection stop me from doing the right thing. The law's pretty clear in outlining the legality of justified force. I may not always be able to rely on the justice system to see that clearly, but if anything that's more of a reason not to trust them with my safety either.

Not too cartoonish as much as it is too "Hollywood." Read my earlier rebuttal to your same argument a few paragraphs up.

You mean that poorly context aligned reference to Robin Hood?
Point to one sentence where I espoused CCP holders as superheroes or the like, so far the only one who's made that claim is you and at that you've done little to prove it.

Logic and common sense would make one believe that if they're being paid to do the job, that they're properly trained and certified for it. That it becomes the sole reason why they're carrying in the first place.

And yet in practice we also find that said money-to-suitability relation falls apart in a number of instances.
Moreover logic and common sense would indicate that CCP holders who forked over cash for all the attached fees, goes out of their way to cope with the social and practical drawbacks as well as accepted the potential liabilities is just as likely through basic motivation to have prepared themselves for it as well.
Not to say that this doesn't fall through too, just that it the two are no different in either their presence or flaws.

Yes, I have my CCP strictly because the few clients I work security for request it. They feel safer knowing that I and my partner are carrying and depending on the situation, we could be wearing a suit with the sidearm concealed or in plain clothes with it open. This job isn't my bread and butter, it's contractual work done a few times a year when said clients need it. In all honesty, these clients are long time friends of mine that pay me for a job I'd willingly do for free. But never have I ever had to pull it, let alone discharge it, while working. Otherwise, if I wanted to carry, I'd simply open-carry as my State Constitution allows me to.

So in essence your saying here that you're perfectly happy to arm yourself in return for pay and/or as a favor for a friend but the thought that someone might do this of their own volition is somehow vigilantism. And seemingly that a weapon is somehow instantly insidious once it's concealed despite the fact that to do so is not only more effective but also a hell of a lot more polite.
What about the people around and about who aren't comfortable with concealed weapons? is the fact that you were hired supersede their wishes in a way my right to self defense doesn't?

[Hyena Dandy]

Crash: It feels to me you've set an arbitrary limit due to the fact that neither of them carry guns to essentially attempt to 'disqualify' your opponents from the debate.

You accuse them of being emotional cowboy vigilantes and what have you, but they are the one providing evidence, and so far the most evidence I've actually seen you bring up rather than respond to was that you have a gun, therefore they can't discuss it.

If they're disqualified for not having guns/not having a concealed carry permit, we could easily just disqualify all of us because (to the best of my knowledge) none of us have ever been in an active shooter scenario, so all of us are basically just trying to imagine what we would do/what it would be appropriate to do.

[Hyena Dandy]

Dear Mods: I'd like if this was edited into my previous post, but it does not have to be. I post at your pleasure, you don't mod at mine. :P So anyway.

Crash: One of your disqualifications was that a woman at a church was volunteering to act as security, and therefore brought her gun. I didn't read anything about her being a security guard, a policeman, or anything other than a woman with a gun who wanted to help protect people.

That sounds like the sort of cowboy mentality you've been arguing against. "I have a gun, I'll protect you."

Why is what she did alright, and the hypothetical case of a CCP owner intervening wrong? The only difference I can see is that she, unlike the CCP owner, said what she was going to do beforehand.

Isn't that still the cowboy mentality?

If so, wouldn't you say what she did was 'cowboy'ing, and wrong, even if it turned out alright?

[Hyena Dandy]

Addendum to my last post, and I apologize for triple-quadruple-whatever posting.

I would like to clarify that's not me doing strawman-arguments, I was asking for clarification on your position.