ABC news: How to survive a mass shooting

Homemade "assault weapons" from primitive sources in Brazil. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/01/22/common-illicitly-homemade-submachine-guns-brazil/ Not hard to make, folks. Pakistan tribal areas make AK47s fully auto for $40 bucks. You can't ban anything the crooks want. You can only ban them from the law abiding.

 

Okay so if that doesn't work let's follow suit with our British and Australian counterparts and how they have dealt with gun control. Your entire argument is based upon the truth that there's bad people out there, and you don't want to do anything about it so why even try.

 

How many unarmed people have stopped a mass shooting as opposed to "good guys with guns"?

 

And what did they accomplish exactly?

Higher overall crime rates for one.

How did Australia's ban work after Port Arthur? If you look at the same number of years, before and after Port Arthur, and add up the number of deaths for mass killings, they are almost exactly the same.

How did the riots in London go in 2011? The police pulled back and just waited for it to stop, then used their cameras that cover every square inch of London to prosecute the offenders. Interestingly sales of baseball bats and other weapons spiked over 5000% on Amazon during the riots.

Taking guns away just gives the animals even more free reign.

 

We have gun control in the US also. What else do you want?

 

Absolutely, and you apparently don't

 

Why the emphasis on "more than half"?

- - - Updated - - -

While it is still orders of magnitude worse than any other civilized Western nation that's really not very impressive.

- - - Updated - - -

Complacency is the easy option.

 

Your arguement that because America hasn't solved one problem it shouldn't try to deal with other problems is bogus.

 

Your argument is not an argument at all, it is a pathetic excuse because you liberals want to ban guns and disregard the 2nd amendment to the constitution. The reality is, if you want to reduce gun violence, the majority of revolves around alcohol and drugs, which you have no argument against

My analogy makes perfect sense. There is absolutely no good reason for humans to consume alcohol, it has zero benefit to family life or society. Weapons on the other hand are designed to kill, which absolutely will save your life.

You can disagree all you want, but I am spot on right, so keep telling yourself your lame flimsy excuse, because it doesn't change the fact that alcohol destroys human life vastly more than a gun

 

Well I guess then that you can post the statistics that guns in private hands save more lives than they destroy. That is in essence your argument. Now go ahead and prove it if you can.

 

The never had the amount of guns to begin with... So no its not the same.

 

Huh, not a problem, 300 million guns in the hands of responsible Americans, and with close to 12,000 gun deaths, which the majority being suicide. Naw, take them all in your opinion. You lose, the second amendment wins

 

Over 30,000 Americans are killed in gun murders, suicides, and accidents year after year.

How many times have guns actually been used by members of the public to survive mass shootings?

Do such Walter Mitty fantasies exceed the number of dead men, women, and children due to firearms?

I would not be surprised.


.

 

This is a common argument, "guns are hard to shoot accurately and average people just can't do it." Thing is, bad guys seem to do alright. Do you suppose they are all born with a genetic ability to shoot accurately or do they simply practice more than the average good guy?

 

I glad I left the "land of fruits and nuts" years ago.

The best way to survive a mass shooting is to not allow gun free zones whereby armed citizens may not be able to defend themselves in the first place. In the mean time, avoid going to, or working in such places.

Otherwise, one must be fit for fight or flight during an attack. A gun on your person is of no use without the will to use it. One must also have the mindset, the tactics and the training to have the best chance of survival.

 

Try again Mr. Mitty:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and thousands more injuries annually.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.[1][6] According to the Gun Violence Archive, there were more reported cases of accidental shooting than reported cases of defensive gun use in the United States in 2014

 

I don't agree with either of your theories. Under extremely stressful situations, accuracy can be seriously impaired, regardless of one is perceived as "bad" or otherwise. The more folks that are blazing away, the greater likelihood of unintentional consequences.

 

Center for Disease Control: Number of firearm deaths in 2013: 33,636

In 2011:

Accidental discharge 851
Suicide 19,766
Homicide 11,101
Undetermined Intent 222

Total: At least 31940 people died from gun injuries in 2011.

Also 258 people were killed during legal intervention, most of them due to guns.

Previous years:
2010 31,328 people
2009 31,177 people
2007 31,224 people
2004 29,569 people

vs

How many mass killings are prevented annually by citizen gunsters again?

 

Most likely because most people don't know what end the bullet comes out of on a gun. You'd have some John Wayne wanna-be firing a gun like they see them do in the movies and you'd end up with a lot of innocent people injured or dead. You live in California where you have police on practically every corner. Call them, they might actually surprise you on how quickly they'll get there.

 

How is that an argument against choosing to concealed carry. Can you guarantee that the chance of ever needing to defend one's life is zero?

 

It isn't. It's just the truth that some can't seem to handle.

No more that I could guarantee that having a gun in my home might never result in the death of a family member by suicide or accident, a tragedy that befalls Americans every day.

Given the comparative rarity of anyone actually successfully using a firearm to defend his life (nowhere near the 30,000 annual fatalities) I recognize the relative probabilities.

If the numbers were reversed, I would readily push for citizens arming themselves.

I just can't pretend the statistics are other than they are because the myth might assuage someone's insecurity.

 

I understand how hard it is to shoot under stress but what would be better, one or two innocents being hit killing a shooter like we have seen or letting him shoot till he is finished? The numbers in these raids are too high, the people don't have much chance. It's a Hobson's choice.

 

Great. I'm glad to hear you say that you can't guarantee that one might ever need need to defend one's life. I agree with you that there is always some chance that one may need to defend one's self from violent attack.

So, are you saying people should choose not to concealed carry? Given the fact that a person might need to defend one's self, concealed carry seems a reasonable precaution.

Or are you saying that people should be legally prohibited from concealed carry? I'm not quite sure of your position.

 

One can contrive any number of scenarios to fit one's agenda.

I do not believe that we, as a society, are impotent when it comes to reducing the 30,000 actual deaths from firearms every year. It's far too high a price to pay for the very few instances where an armed citizen might actually interrupt a mass killer.

 

Of course. One might need a bazooka, a fighter plane, a fire extinguisher, an explosive device, a telephone, a large rock, or a loud voice to defend one's life in specific scenarios. It's easy to contrive such situations and many more.

If a person feels insecure unless he schleps around a blunderbuss or blue blanket with him wherever he goes, it's unlikely that logic and reason will ween him off his dependency.

Ideally, I would hope fewer folks would be gun dependent because the proliferation of guns facilitates more victims of guns, but many are dependent. So (and again I don't expect such progress to occur anytime soon) I would hope the mystique of the gun could be shattered and firearms be treated like any other common tools such as an automobiles where Americans are allowed to protect themselves by a process by which any who want to use them satisfy proficiency requirements for their safe operation.

Incompetent, reckless, drunken, enraged or deranged individuals should not be allowed behind the wheel or allowed to wield a weapon. The more it happens, the more innocents die.