"Batman Massacre"

[wolfie]

The State of Nevada requires a 30 round qualification shooting test (6 12, and 12 rounds at 3, 5 and 7 yards respectively). A minimum score of 70% with each hand is required to pass, and you must recertify for every weapon you wish to conceal.

WTF? There are some firearms (Schofield revolver, for instance) which can be used AND RE-LOADED only using one hand. Admittedly, the Schofield required being stuck into the user's belt (on horseback - left hand busy with the reins) to hold it in place while re-loading, and it's an obsolescent (black powder) weapon. Others (such as auto-loaders) can be used by someone who has partial use of one hand (can grip relatively large objects, such as racking the slide or inserting a magazine, but don't have the fine motor control in that hand to pull the trigger). An ex-soldier who has a "claw" due to an IED (medically discharged due to the injury) could easily fit into this category.

It would be perfectly reasonable for someone with only one fully-functioning hand to choose a gun which fits their abilities, but this aspect of Nevada law prohibits anyone lacking TWO fully-functional hands from obtaining a permit for concealed carry. Discrimination on grounds of disability, anyone? It would be interesting to see what would happen if a disabled Marine who could put every shot in the "X" ring at 3, 5, and 7 (and 30, 50, and 70) yards using his good hand, but was physically unable to operate the pistol with his other (maimed) hand, applied for a concealed carry permit.

[Rapscallion]

To be honest to me... that's pretty much labeling all gun owners as being scary cats. For... essentially being different.

Being different?

Being different is having a different hairstyle to fit in with a certain group. Being different is wearing a certain style of clothing.

I've never seen a goth or a punk or a mod go out and advocate to others that they should consider the lifestyle and fashion choices.

You're scared of your neighbourhoods, scared of the people from the next commune over - that's why you have the guns.

I mean i fully understand if gun owning is something you disagree with. but I do dislike the idea of blanket assumptions like that. cos it seems more like ... i dunno, deciding all gun owners are scared of their own shadows. for basically holding to beliefs you disagree with. O_o

Try reading the pro-gun advocacy messages. Try it.

"If guns are banned, only criminals will have guns."

No shit, but the message is that if the gubmint comes and gets your guns, criminals are lying in wait to steal or murder you.

but it's not hard to figure out that there are groups out there who do want to take away our rights. this is just another vehicle they're taking advantage of to do so.

Got any names of these groups and why they'd want to remove them?

So, what's so scary about talking about guns and keeping them out of the hands of nutters?

Actually, when you think about it, we trust our neighbors with guns more than we trust the government to adequately handle the situation where they're the only ones who (legally) have guns.

From everything I've seen, the guns owned by most US citizens would be a grade or three lower than those in use by the military. You'd have no realistic chance if you wanted to overthrow your gubmint. Assuming that the army went along with them, of course.

If you distrust them so much, why keep voting? If nobody votes, they won't get in!

Let's presume, for a moment, that we ban all guns - the only people who are legally able to have them are the police and the military. Do we smile and carry on, assuming that our government is incorruptible, and those guns will never find their way into other hands? And that's not even considering guns smuggled in from other countries.

Don't have to presume. Look over here.

It's a major incident over here when an armed police officer loses a magazine with ammunition, though it's damned rare.

Gun crime over here is pretty minor - it happens, but it's not happened to anyone I know (unless they're keeping it quiet).

Ultimately, my position stems from the "genie axiom" - the genie's out of the bottle, you can't shove it back in. Guns exist. Guns will always exist. There's no way to make them not exist; you can't make every government on the planet disarm, and you can't remove the knowledge of how to make them from gunsmiths' heads. Better to understand them and learn how to deal with them, than play ostrich.

For once I'll agree with you. We had the advantage of getting rid of firearms before most of society could afford them en masse as yours can. They never really were that widespread due to economics. Were guns to be outlawed to the general public in the US, and even without armed rebellion, there would most likely be a rise in incidents. At first, anyway. I reckon it would take a couple of months for the initial surge to die off as society re-adjusted. I don't think proper change would be effected for a generation or two, considering how deeply entrenched the whole notion of weaponry is in the US.

Jonathan Blunk
Alexander Boik
Jesse Childress
ordon Cowden
Jessica Ghawi
John Larimer
Matt McQuinn
Micayla Medek
Ceronica Moser-Sullivan
Alex Sullivan
Alexander Teves
Rebecca Wingo

They paid the price for the freedom you love. This will keep happening. It may be painful for a while to give it up, but unless you do that price will keep on being paid.

Look at that list. What's so scary about talking about keeping guns out of the hands of nutters?

Rapscallion

[crashhelmet]

Well, if you really want to address the darkness situation...

The shooter entered from a brightly-lit parking lot, into a theater that had been running for 20 minutes. The patrons' eyes were fully adjusted to their situation; the shooters' were not. Not that it would have taken him long to adjust.

He was firing indiscriminately into a crowd of people. He didn't need to wait for his eyes to adjust to the changes in lighting.

Furthermore, from many angles, he would have been back-lit against the brightly-lit screen, while he'd be looking and firing into the darkness at any supposed counter-assailants.

The tear gas is an issue, no question. But it's not an insurmountable one, especially given the design of theaters - people toward the back of the theater would be far less affected by the gas than the people up toward the front.

The tear gas serves as a deterrent, as well as a smoke screen. He threw 2 cans into different parts of the theatre, spreading it about. And again, was firing indiscriminately into the crowd of people. Field of vision meant very little to him.

Neither are precisely the same sort of situation, but unless you're trying to say that I have to have something perfectly analogous, you can certainly apply the information from them to different situations. If you are insisting that I have to have a perfectly-analogous situation, then you're performing a variant of the Scotsman Fallacy.

I'm trying to say this:

You can't use the incident of someone with the training and experience of a cop in a low panic situation to say that someone without any training at all would be successful in a high panic situation. I'd use an analogy, but I'd just be accused of strawmanning again.

Hardly pointless. You're just hand-waving the point away, because you can't defend it adequately.

No, your argument is pointless and I'm not hand-waving. Different calibre rounds have different forces of impacts. Different distances between the gun and the target play a role in that impact. The composition of the vest worn also plays a role in the impact. Even the gun itself and the length of its barrel plays a role. And then there are angles of trajectory and impact.

It's called "Physics."

I can go basic and F=MA (Force equals mass times accelleration)

Or I can say Kinetic Energy equals Velocity squared times the weight of the bullet in grains, divided by 450,240

Click here if you need a visual

Because mine aren't perfect, happily-ever after situations, while yours seem to be perfect-disaster situations - you throw up one tiny objection, and presume that destroys the entire situation.

Situational awareness calls for considering "perfect-disaster situations." Put in that situation, the responsible person, the trained person, has to take the moment to think about what's going on. You can't just pull your gun out and start firing. This is real life, not Hollywood or video games.

Oh, good! You're finally thinking. But you're not thinking it through completely, you're again putting up full-stop counters, rather than critically thinking about the scenario.

Critical thinking requires consideration of full stop counters. See my last reply.

How about you go back and read the link that Andara provided, where an actual threat analyst ran down every possible scenario? You know, the person who actually gets paid to do this sort of thing?

Here's a hint: Several of the scenarios do include the possibility of the counter-shooter accidentally hitting innocents. And yet, the casualty count still ends up smaller. How does THAT work? Well... I guess you'll have to go back and read, won't you?

The same threat analyst that based his data off of sources that openly omitted data crucial to the investigation? That threat analyst? I've already proven his data was flawed. GK cited even more reports that proved his data was flawed. I don't even have to throw in accusations of bias to debunk his "findings."

Yes, there is a possibility of a counter shooter resulting in less casualties. But you can not deny that it can also lead to more casualties. Chaos can not be predicted. And that is why I keep arguing this. You can't say that because some old man shot at 2 robbers, that didn't shoot anyone, that an armed audience member in that theatre would've been as successful. That's horrible logic and full of false hope.

The only way this could've worked out with the hero reducing the number of casualties is someone in the very front row, right in front of the shooter, carrying and surviving the initial shots fired.

Perfect place, perfect time, perfect luck.

The other option would be to tackle him, which again requires said perfect circumstances.

[Andara Bledin]

No shit, but the message is that if the gubmint comes and gets your guns, criminals are lying in wait to steal or murder you.

Considering that there are links to that effect already in this thread (blanket allow open carry = crime drops : blanket ban gun ownership = crime [notably violent crime] goes up immediately), there are definitely criminals out there with exactly that mindset.

You'd have no realistic chance if you wanted to overthrow your gubmint. Assuming that the army went along with them, of course.

Don't forget that "the military" is made up of "the people." Plus, volume can trump caliber.

If you distrust them so much, why keep voting? If nobody votes, they won't get in!

Not voting won't stop anything. There are rules in place for a lack of response.

Plus, you could never get enough people to not vote to make it worth not voting; that would just result in more of the worst types getting in.

Don't have to presume. Look over here.

Over there is not remotely analogous to over here. History, access, size, and borders are so incredibly different that it makes a direct comparison fairly meaningless.

Gun crime over here is pretty minor - it happens, but it's not happened to anyone I know (unless they're keeping it quiet).

I only know one person who has even had a close call involving a firearm, and that was when somebody did a drive-by and targeted the wrong house. Nobody was hurt; all they left was a single bullet hole in the building, though it definitely could have been worse.

I also know someone that was nearly killed with a bit of pipe and a knife and someone else who was mugged, also involving a knife.

However, I have been witness to a few cases where someone in my immediate area was harmed with a gun. It is worth noting that in all of those cases, the issue was gang-related, and also drug-related in all but one case.

I reckon it would take a couple of months for the initial surge to die off as society re-adjusted.

Considering that we can't even keep drugs, which have been illegal for a century, from crossing our borders, I sincerely doubt we'd do any better at stopping guns from doing the same with just as much ease and by largely the same people.

^-.-^

[siead_lietrathua]

The shooter entered from a brightly-lit parking lot, into a theater that had been running for 20 minutes. The patrons' eyes were fully adjusted to their situation; the shooters' were not. Not that it would have taken him long to adjust

kinda wanted to address this one. just from what i've noticed when going to the movies..
when in one's seat facing the screen, everyone infront of you is lit up shadows and you can't tell people apart.
when standing at the front looking up at people, you can see their faces lit up from the screen reflecting the light. it's how one finds their buddies again if one had to pop out to the lobby.
so your eyes dont have to adjust that much when the lightsource is at your back instead of glaring in your face. it's easier to focus on people lit from the front than the back. or so it would seem anyway.
just, kinda popped in the head.

[BlaqueKatt]

You just solved the Unemployment Crisis. Are you eligible to run for the Presidency?

yes because all the unemployed are fully qualified to be armed security guards

The fear I was talking about was the one where the NRA etc are more than happy to point at shady bogeymen and tell you to arm up. That inspires distrust and makes a huge mockery of your 'fellow Americans'.

I'm assuming you forgot about this threadhint it has nothing at all to do with a shady bogeyman)
Why I own and train monthly with a firearm

Were guns to be outlawed to the general public in the US

ok law passes tomorrow-no more guns.


how do you plan on enforcing this? random searches, sorry bill of rights says illegal.
article IV :"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Ask them, oh sorry also unconstitutional,
Article V:No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

also, while the ban of new manufacture could be done(also costing jobs), the currently owned firearms would not be illegal, see article I, section 9(federal) and section 10(states) US constitution-Ex Post Facto laws cannot be passed. and as England may not have this prohibition it is defined as "Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed."
so it would take tromping over two articles and three amendments, and guess what ignoring the constitution, stripping the people of their rights, is what defines a tyrannical government, that you claim we have no need to worry about.

[protege]

so it would take tromping over two articles and three amendments, and guess what ignoring the constitution, stripping the people of their rights, is what defines a tyrannical government, that you claim we have no need to worry about.

Holy crap...I'm agreeing with BlaqueKatt

Seriously though, to say that we cannot have our rights taken away, it *has* happened in the US before. Look at what happened to Japanese (along with German and Italian) Americans during WWII. They were forcibly rounded up and caged. All the while, it was judged to be "constitutional," and the attack on Pearl Harbor was the excuse. Sound familiar?

[Nekojin]

I'm trying to say this:

You can't use the incident of someone with the training and experience of a cop in a low panic situation to say that someone without any training at all would be successful in a high panic situation. I'd use an analogy, but I'd just be accused of strawmanning again.

WHOAH, HOSS. A CCW permit holder is a fucking LONG way from "someone without any training at all." What did I say about using strawman arguments?

Many CCW holders are better-trained than your average police officer, who typically only have to qualify once a year. Most hobbyist gun fans hate when the police officers come to the range, because they're more arrogant and less skilled than anyone else in the place, and frequently don't even follow standard safety procedures - things like sweeping the gallery with the muzzle of their gun, which is practically the biggest NO-NO there is.

No, your argument is pointless and I'm not hand-waving. Different calibre rounds have different forces of impacts. Different distances between the gun and the target play a role in that impact. The composition of the vest worn also plays a role in the impact. Even the gun itself and the length of its barrel plays a role. And then there are angles of trajectory and impact.

It's called "Physics."

I can go basic and F=MA (Force equals mass times accelleration)

Or I can say Kinetic Energy equals Velocity squared times the weight of the bullet in grains, divided by 450,240

Click here if you need a visual

Of course you're hand-waving. You're taking any negative potential event, and spinning it out into a disaster. That's practically the fucking definition of hand-waving.

Situational awareness calls for considering "perfect-disaster situations." Put in that situation, the responsible person, the trained person, has to take the moment to think about what's going on. You can't just pull your gun out and start firing. This is real life, not Hollywood or video games.

Critical thinking requires consideration of full stop counters. See my last reply.

Yes, but critical thinking doesn't mean, "Worst case scenario is a disaster, so anything I do to mitigate that had just better not be done at all."

The same threat analyst that based his data off of sources that openly omitted data crucial to the investigation? That threat analyst? I've already proven his data was flawed. GK cited even more reports that proved his data was flawed. I don't even have to throw in accusations of bias to debunk his "findings."

Actually, you didn't debunk shit, but I do owe you an apology. The link I was referring to never got posted. Andara and I discussed it briefly, I thought she posted it, and I neglected to confirm. So, with that in mind, here it is.

Yes, there is a possibility of a counter shooter resulting in less casualties. But you can not deny that it can also lead to more casualties. Chaos can not be predicted. And that is why I keep arguing this. You can't say that because some old man shot at 2 robbers, that didn't shoot anyone, that an armed audience member in that theatre would've been as successful. That's horrible logic and full of false hope.

The only way this could've worked out with the hero reducing the number of casualties is someone in the very front row, right in front of the shooter, carrying and surviving the initial shots fired.

Perfect place, perfect time, perfect luck.

Emphasis added. That's what I'm talking about when I say that you're throwing up any objection, no matter how minor, as "proof" that it's entirely disastrous.

The other option would be to tackle him, which again requires said perfect circumstances.

Well, given that he WAS wearing a gas mask, which hinders vision a bit, and ESPECIALLY peripheral vision... I don't think PERFECT circumstances are called for.

The scenario plays out in many different ways. In reality, there were 12 dead and 58 wounded. The only reason that the numbers are so low is that the shooter inexplicably just stopped, turned, and left the theater.

If, by chance, there was a CCW person in the house (and there very well may have been, for all we know), AND he happened to have his gun on him, the majority probability is still the same events playing out in the same way, as the CCW holder decided that acting was too risky. Virtually any action he could have taken would have dramatically raised his own risk of dying, and in a crisis situation, most people will think of the safety of themselves and their families first and foremost. There's nothing wrong with this, and it's entirely rational to do so. But if, by chance, the hypothetical CCW holder decided to take action, probability favors his actions reducing the casualty count overall. Unlike the shooter, he'll know where his opposition is, and will be able to take the time to reduce risks like panicked people running between him and the shooter. There shooter quite deliberately positioned himself so that there wouldn't be anyone behind him, so the risk of hitting someone behind him is essentially nil.

And there's a good chance that even if a CCW Holder decided to take action in this case, he might not have had a suitable opportunity before the shooter just stopped and walked out.

[Nekojin]

I had actually intended this to be included in my last post, but forgot to paste the response in, so I have to redo the whole thing. *DOH*

From everything I've seen, the guns owned by most US citizens would be a grade or three lower than those in use by the military. You'd have no realistic chance if you wanted to overthrow your gubmint. Assuming that the army went along with them, of course.

If you distrust them so much, why keep voting? If nobody votes, they won't get in!

You misunderstood my point. At no point did I say anything about "having guns to overthrow the government." Frankly, if we get to the point that our own government is an existential threat to us, having guns or not probably won't be a deciding factor in how things play out, and I most certainly don't intend to be waving a gun at the White House.

My point isn't the government as a whole, it's corrupt individuals within the government, that would be the problem if we banned guns.

Consider that criminals - people who are already banned from having guns, due to having felonies on their record - get their guns in one of four ways:

1.) From other criminals (which, admittedly, generally requires the other three methods).
2.) Stolen from legal gun owners.
3.) Bought from legal gun owners.
4.) Imported/smuggled from other countries.

Passing a wholesale gun ban, assuming you can actually get all of the guns from currently-legal owners, only affects #2 and #3, and it doesn't even eliminate them, it just narrows the pool. Instead of stealing/buying from Joe Average, they'd be stealing/buying from someone in the government. Think along the lines of a Police Lieutenant taking guns that were confiscated from criminals selling them before they can be logged, or a Supply Sergeant falsifying requisitions and selling the weapons on the black market. These things already happen, they're just either covered up or BIG FRAGGING NEWS!

And passing the law will do nothing to stop #4. Do you expect Colombia, Argentina, or Mexico to pass similar bans on guns? Do you expect Smith & Wesson to just curl up and die, rather than relocating to a country that welcomes them?

Don't have to presume. Look over here.

It's a major incident over here when an armed police officer loses a magazine with ammunition, though it's damned rare.

Gun crime over here is pretty minor - it happens, but it's not happened to anyone I know (unless they're keeping it quiet).

Island nation! Granted, smugglers have a much easier time crossing the English Channel than the seas between Australia and everywhere else, but it's still the same issue - without land routes, smuggling becomes a lot harder. The US has 1969 miles of border between us and Mexico, and 5525 miles between us and Canada (not counting Alaska). That's a lot of territory to cover, if you want to stop smuggling.

For once I'll agree with you. We had the advantage of getting rid of firearms before most of society could afford them en masse as yours can. They never really were that widespread due to economics. Were guns to be outlawed to the general public in the US, and even without armed rebellion, there would most likely be a rise in incidents. At first, anyway. I reckon it would take a couple of months for the initial surge to die off as society re-adjusted. I don't think proper change would be effected for a generation or two, considering how deeply entrenched the whole notion of weaponry is in the US.

I don't think the initial surge would be over within a couple of months. A couple of years, maybe. But I do agree that if a gun ban were effectively implemented, the "unintended consequences" would only last a few generations.

Jonathan Blunk
Alexander Boik
Jesse Childress
ordon Cowden
Jessica Ghawi
John Larimer
Matt McQuinn
Micayla Medek
Ceronica Moser-Sullivan
Alex Sullivan
Alexander Teves
Rebecca Wingo

They paid the price for the freedom you love. This will keep happening. It may be painful for a while to give it up, but unless you do that price will keep on being paid.

This is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. Why are these dozen deaths more noteworthy than any other? I can respect wanting to honor them, but that's as far as it goes. Thousands of people die worse deaths every year (inasmuch as you can call any death "better").

Look at that list. What's so scary about talking about keeping guns out of the hands of nutters?

I've got no problem with trying to keep guns out of the hands of nutters. We already have laws regarding that. But there's no amount of planning, no amount of preparation that can prevent a Breivik or a Holmes - neither one of them showed any threat profile prior to their respective massacres, despite the fact that they both clearly planned well in advance.

Did these people have better or worse deaths than Holmes' victims?

[siead_lietrathua]

This is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. Why are these dozen deaths more noteworthy than any other? I can respect wanting to honor them, but that's as far as it goes. Thousands of people die worse deaths every year (inasmuch as you can call any death "better").

er.. i think mentioning the names of the victims in this thread DOES have purpose, since... ya know.. the thread is about them. being killed. a week ago.
this thread was started about a specific event. jsut because it's derailed from that event doesnt make their tragety any less.

[Nekojin]

er.. i think mentioning the names of the victims in this thread DOES have purpose, since... ya know.. the thread is about them. being killed. a week ago.
this thread was started about a specific event. jsut because it's derailed from that event doesnt make their tragety any less.

Yes, but when the names are being listed with the purpose of making a point ("They paid for your freedoms") it stops being about them, and starts being about the message, which is why I said what I did.

[Gravekeeper]

Indiscriminate ranting, indeed, considering that this statement is demonstrably false.

Demonstratably false by a cherry picked list of cities attempting to change their laws on a local level in direct contravention to the previous argument in this thread that the flow of guns could not be controlled into the US due to it having shared borders?

I had not heard any report on him being in therapy before. What's the source?

Yeah looks like the original source was Fox. However the updates making their way around now have corrected it. He mailed it to his professor it sounds like.

Or this incident in Florida, where a man with a legal Concealed Carry license stopped an armed robbery.

I was waiting for one of you to try and use that example, seeing as how it demonstrates the problem with a CCW on the scene perfectly. Dipshit there escalated a non-lethal situation into a lethal one and is such a terrible shot that he sent bullets flying INTO A PUBLIC STREET. Then, wrapped up in his little wannabe Hero fantasy, he chased and continued to shoot then continued to fire OUT THE DOOR into the street. Endangering the lives of bystanders.

He fully intended to kill the suspects and they had no real intention of killing anyone themselves seeing as they ran rather than return fire. So the only thing the CCW holder accomplished was escalating a situation to a level of lethal danger and sending live rounds into a public street. Fucking bravo.

[Andara Bledin]

Demonstratably false by a cherry picked list of cities attempting to change their laws on a local level in direct contravention to the previous argument in this thread that the flow of guns could not be controlled into the US due to it having shared borders?

I'm not understanding what it is you're trying to say, here. Could you clarify?

Yeah looks like the original source was Fox. However the updates making their way around now have corrected it. He mailed it to his professor it sounds like.

So, the notebook sent to the college psychologist (an information leak that led to the judge on the case issuing a gag order on the University today) is it, then.

Then, wrapped up in his little wannabe Hero fantasy, he chased and continued to shoot then continued to fire OUT THE DOOR into the street. Endangering the lives of bystanders.

I make no argument about the guy appearing to go overboard, but at no time does it appear that there are any bystanders behind the perpetrators when he fires.

If the location I found was accurate, the street is about 200 feet away and to the right of the doorway. Based on his facing and the angle of fire, it's unlikely that his shots would have gotten past the first row of cars.

In fact, even if I have the wrong place and the street is much closer, the downward angle is still likely to have precluded any rounds going into traffic.

Also, I'm not entirely certain he wanted to kill them as much as he wanted to make sure they kept running. If his goal was to make them dead, he wouldn't have had that huge pause partway through where he doesn't fire at all and he likely would have been firing much faster than he was.

Lastly, it's worth noting that the thugs in question were already displaying violence inside the cafe; the one with the bat was actively attacking machines before the defender started firing.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not understanding what it is you're trying to say, here. Could you clarify?

My point is on one hand you guys are arguing at a macro level then you turn around and argue at a micro level when it suits you. Then drafting up a nice little list that is the very definition of correlation not equalling causation.

Crime is not dependent on access to weapons. Crime is a symptom of social and economic problems in a country, weapons are a secondary. Trying to use something like Switzerland of all things as an example is hilariously misguided. Ever met anyone from Switzerland? I have, and he was conscripted after he got out of high school. Switzerland's crime rates have nothing to do with guns and everything to do with being a wonderful place to live where everyone has mandatory military training. That is no way comparable to the US.

Even that aside, guns obviously do shit and all to prevent or deter crime in the US. Especially violent crime. Seeing as you have the highest rate of homicide in the western world ( along with the highest rate of firearm usage for homicide of course, and the highest rate of firearm related deaths too naturally. ).

Switzerland, meanwhile, has one of the lowest in the world. Why? Because its a much nicer place to live than the US and one of the best places to live in the entire world. Its wealthier, healthier and has a vastly better social support system.

Like I said, your problem is a 3 way gangbang and you can't or won't fix any of the three. Suggesting that more guns is somehow the answer to the sorts of problems facing the US is so tragically misguided as to be completely infuriating for bystanders such as myself.

So, the notebook sent to the college psychologist (an information leak that led to the judge on the case issuing a gag order on the University today) is it, then.

Yes, specifically his professor. Whom, you'd think, being a psychologist might have noticed something. >.>

I make no argument about the guy appearing to go overboard, but at no time does it appear that there are any bystanders behind the perpetrators when he fires.

"It's totally okay for him to fire wildly because I carefully checked out the whole area and there's a good chance its pretty clear"? Seriously?

He shot one in the arm, and the other twice in the back hitting him straight in the ass and the hip. He even crouched low to get a good shot before he fired.

As for the perpetrators, the gun they had wasn't loaded and wasn't operational. It could not fire even if they had bullets. Its only purpose was to scare people so they could rob the place. They had no intention of hurting anyone their plan was a grab and run. One of them they interviewed even mentioned he's freaked otu because some crazy old man opened fire on him, shot him twice and kept shooting at him while he was on the ground.

He shot one of them twice, from behind and kept shooting while he was on the ground. Then he fires again on them out the door. That's totally reckless and exceedingly dangerous. You can see it on the video, the kid is on the ground outside, panicking for his life and he takes another shot at him.

That's attempted murder. Not self defence and its sickening that he's being hailed as any sort of hero or that people are cheering this reckless behaviour and complaining if only he had been a better shot and killed both of them.

Lastly, it's worth noting that the thugs in question were already displaying violence inside the cafe; the one with the bat was actively attacking machines before the defender started firing.

He was not "actively attacking machines", he was gathering cell phones so no one could call the cops. When he first enters he takes one swing at a machine to scare people and that's it.

[Nekojin]

My point is on one hand you guys are arguing at a macro level then you turn around and argue at a micro level when it suits you. Then drafting up a nice little list that is the very definition of correlation not equalling causation.

Crime is not dependent on access to weapons. Crime is a symptom of social and economic problems in a country, weapons are a secondary. Trying to use something like Switzerland of all things as an example is hilariously misguided. Ever met anyone from Switzerland? I have, and he was conscripted after he got out of high school. Switzerland's crime rates have nothing to do with guns and everything to do with being a wonderful place to live where everyone has mandatory military training. That is no way comparable to the US.

Even that aside, guns obviously do shit and all to prevent or deter crime in the US. Especially violent crime. Seeing as you have the highest rate of homicide in the western world ( along with the highest rate of firearm usage for homicide of course, and the highest rate of firearm related deaths too naturally. ).

Switzerland, meanwhile, has one of the lowest in the world. Why? Because its a much nicer place to live than the US and one of the best places to live in the entire world. Its wealthier, healthier and has a vastly better social support system.

Like I said, your problem is a 3 way gangbang and you can't or won't fix any of the three. Suggesting that more guns is somehow the answer to the sorts of problems facing the US is so tragically misguided as to be completely infuriating for bystanders such as myself.

You seem to be completely misunderstanding our arguments.

With regard to the micro/macro issue - the point being made is to prove that gun bans clearly don't prevent crime (and appear to do the opposite), while free access to guns clearly doesn't cause an increase in crime (and, again, appears to do the opposite, at least some of the time). Will banning guns reduce the number of guns? Sure. Will it reduce crime? Historical data seems to indicate otherwise. It seems highly likely that criminals would be quite pleased to have a disarmed populace to mug, burgle, and rob from.

There's no inconsistency there. The examples being given (Switzerland, Kennesaw, Florida, etc.) are to demonstrate that guns, in and of themselves, are clearly not the problem, so banning guns won't solve the problem.

With regard to the "defensive shooting" example, I have to admit that I didn't check it carefully. That's what happens when I only have 15 minutes in which to read and post while at work. *shrug*