Nah. The country has lots and lots of guns. The inner city has nothing on us. Guns are pretty much outlawed in Chicago, NY and until recenly in DC. Where have YOU been.
I feel quite safe, thank you very much. Don’t even bother to keep one loaded.
Actually, upon review, the interchange did take place after the show aired, just didn’t register. Brain fart, or early onset Budweiser’s, but the facts is the facts.
My mistake elucidator you called SennorBeef on media bias with a sarcastic response.
Post 70.
No hurt, no foul.
Well, being fired on will often spoil someones aim.
And, once you have killed them, they no longer get to keep on shooting.
Quite stunning. I was not apologizing to you for a very simple oversight on my part. I was pointing out the opinion you have shown in this thread.
If we were just now forming a brand new country, or just inventing firearms, I’d be all for banning them outright. I don’t like guns. I don’t own a gun. I wish they didn’t exist. However, in the real world, they’re already entrenched in the United States - physically and culturally - and any attempt to get rid of them would have to be a power grab of dictatorial proportions. Not to mention the fact that you would quite literally disarm law-abiding citizens first and foremost, leaving a smorgasbord of easy prey for criminals. You’d never get rid of all guns - not with the armies of 5 countries out searching. You’d just give an overwhelming advantage to criminals. And if guns ever were outlawed, the police damn well better disarm too. The thought of college dropouts who were able to crank out a mile and a half in under 13 minutes wielding deadly weapons that no one else has frankly scares the shit out of me.
I stopped watching the show during the first commercial break since I could tell it was going to be ridiculously biased in the very first segment. So they give untrained college students a gun in a retention holster (a big no-no for real concealed carry scenarios) and see what happens when someone rushes the class and starts firing? Every time the shooter went for the student (experiment subject) with the gun first. Why? If it was a realistic scenario, wouldn’t he be blasting randomly or systematically down the line? The idea in that situation is to blend in with everyone else until you return fire…
I also scoffed at the kids playing with the guns. They’re kids, of course they’re going to pick up stuff and play with it! That’s why any responsible parent ensures the kid doesn’t have access to it in the first place.
There are various places that to document the usefulness of guns in defensive situations, one of them being this. If the media is going to ignore them and douse out scare tactics, it’s just lazy, unethical reporting.
To try to get this back on track, re the 20/20 episode If I only had a gun. Id like to ask some questions and make a few observations.
(I have only seen the show once)
Regarding the classroom shooting set up –
From what I saw, the students where given a few hours of instruction with the pistol and holster. Maybe a lot, lot less.
The student with the gun was always seated in the same spot in the classroom. This let the firearms instructor come in and target him/her after he ‘shot’ the teacher.
This was 20/20s realistic scenario.
Not untrained. they were well versed in guns and had a lifetime of practice. The point was that police get trained and need frequent brushup to keep their edge. The gun nutters all believe they are fully capable of handling an incident. They are not. They think they are great shots and have their emotions under control.
They showed that responsible parents do not have it under control like they believe. They asked dad if the kids knew he had a gun and where it was. He assured them ,like all gun nuts do, that the kids do not know and everything is under control. They asked the kid to show them where the gun is. They took him right to it.
All gun fans have guns under control and train their families. Why thousands of people die from accidental discharge or kids playing with guns ,i will never know.
Cite? C’mon, find a post by one of us Dopers claiming any such thing.
Y’know, if I had a big budget, unlimited time, and an agenda, I bet I could put together a nice piece of propaganda, too.
Thousands? A year? I’m going to need a cite for that, too.
No doubt an exaggeration. On the other hand, what number would you find unacceptable?
According to the CDC, the most current stats they have are for 2005-789 deaths.
Out of curiosity, how much training and periodic requalification do you think is required of the average peace officer?
(bolding mine)
Yes, you are certainly bring an undistorted and objective perspective to the discussion, and address the issue without invective or semantic bias. I’m glad you’re not letting bare emotion and irrational hatred cloud your ability to accept and interpret information.
Stranger
All countries have armed specialist squads for those rare occasions when they’re needed, but in many places, the majority of cops do not carry guns. What’s more, the places where the cops can do this are, as you say, the places where civilian firearm ownership is highly restricted, which are precisely those places which the pro-gun contingent assures us ought to be the most dangerous.
And in the situation under discussion, I’m being fired on, too, so my aim should be spoiled too, right? And “once I have killed them” doesn’t do me any good, because my assailant is going to be out of bullets long before that point, since I’m almost certainly not going to kill him instantly.
Did anyone on this board thing the gun nutters would accept any criticism ? Their response was as predictable as ever. And of course they are being totally fair. The people with questions ,are showing bigotry. What else could it be.
You guys should be embarrassed when one of you claims he is an augmentation for the police. You should tell him that the training they receive puts them in a different level. But it is always a Family Feud response. Good answer,good answer as they clap.
Some day the police will put out an alarm when they have an incident. Calling all gun lovers, we have a dangerous situation and require your abilities to solve it.
Exactly my point. This “realistic” scenario was so stacked against the students every time it was utterly pointless.
And to gonzomax, not sure what show you watched, but the one I saw had ONE of college student who was competent with firearms, the others were complete newbies.
If you’re arguing that ongoing training is necessary to be a competent marksman, well there’s no argument here. That’s common sense. However, reality dictates that police officers aren’t necessarily more competent with firearms training than a non-law-enforcement gun enthusiast/owner. There are incompetent law enforcement officers who should have no business handling firearms just as there are highly trained civilians who go to the range and train much more than cops do. To widely generalize a population is wrong, to say the least.
There is no such thing as an accidental discharge, just a negligent one. Parents who think they hide their guns well enough are ignorant or negligent depending on how you look at it. There’s a reason gun safes exist.
Perhaps part of your problem is that you keep on calling the people who share a different viewpoint than you, “gun nutters.” :rolleyes: You are debating with your emotions, not facts. Try coming back when you have hard statistics to back up your claims. As for the rest of your post, I honestly couldn’t understand it enough to engage any any kind of worthwhile debate. Sorry.
I remember listening to Bruce Williams (primarily business-related program) on the radio once and he was trying to dissuade some guy from jumping into a foolish business venture. The guy he was talking to kept coming back to someone he’d read about who’d done something similar successfully and he wouldn’t be convinced otherwise. Williams finally made his point successfully by putting it his way: “You know, I was in a plane crash once, and even though I was hospitalized for months I was lucky and I survived. Now, does that mean that if you’re in a plane crash you’ll survive?”
Hopefully the day will come when American liberals realize that this is not Europe (or Asia or anywhere else). When European countries were being established, the weapons of choice to establish them were battle axes, broad swords and long bows. When the U.S. was established, guns were the order of the day. The right to arm ourselves exists in the Constitution. The number of guns that exist in this country today are in the millions. Civilian firearm restrictions aren’t the reason that there is so little gun crime in other countries, it’s because guns were never there in large numbers among the populace to begin with. Given the huge number of guns that exist in this country, a great many of which no one even knows exist, it would be impossible to restrict or eliminate enough of them to keep them out of the hands of the criminal element. Criminals in other countries don’t have ready access to firearms because firearms have been relatively scarce there to begin with and that is the primary reason they have so little gun crime. Had the U.S. been settled before the advent of guns, or had we brutal dictatorships like existed/exists in Asia, we could have low gun crime just like they do. But again this is not someplace else, and just because things are different there it does not follow, ipso facto, that if we try to mimic them the result will be the same here.
This is a classic, prime example of arguing in bad faith. If you can’t present your ideas without using invective and pejorative, the game is already over.