• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clackamas man, armed, confronts mall shooter

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
PORTLAND -- Nick Meli is emotionally drained. The 22-year-old was at Clackamas Town Center with a friend and her baby when a masked man opened fire."I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?,'" he said.
The friend and baby hit the floor. Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.
"He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."
The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.
"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.
Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.
"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

Clackamas man, armed, confronts mall shooter | kgw.com Portland

Deterrence in action. An armed society is a safer society.
 
Deterrence in action. An armed society is a safer society.

Deterence.. hahaha.. Well, if we are one dimensional thinkers, maybe. However, some of us can think beyond and rationalize the situation. Yes, you are safer in an ARMED society by being armed. However, if guns were not so easily available, it begs to question weather many of these instances would have taken place to begin with. If there were no one there with a gun, you would not need to defend yourself against it. Simple logic... All guns start out being sold legally to someone or some organization. It is what happens after that, that causes the problems. So the only way to control that, is to very tightly control, or ban guns. Those who obtain guns illegally, obtain them from someone who got them legally at some point.
 
Deterrence in action. An armed society is a safer society.
Its ashamed that news stories of people using firearms to stop or prevent crime hardly makes a blip on the media's radar. If the media was unbiased then for every anti-2nd amendment loon advocating more infringements on the 2nd amendment with every sicko shoots up a place story there would a 2nd amendment advocate advocating for easier access to firearms during a gun owner saves lives or stops crime stories.
 
Deterence.. hahaha.. Well, if we are one dimensional thinkers, maybe. However, some of us can think beyond and rationalize the situation. Yes, you are safer in an ARMED society by being armed. However, if guns were not so easily available, it begs to question weather many of these instances would have taken place to begin with. If there were no one there with a gun, you would not need to defend yourself against it. Simple logic... All guns start out being sold legally to someone or some organization. It is what happens after that, that causes the problems. So the only way to control that, is to very tightly control, or ban guns. Those who obtain guns illegally, obtain them from someone who got them legally at some point.

Of course if one is to follow that reasoning one must also ignore the fact that there are indeed guns all over and that includes in areas where private ownership of firearms is very heavily restricted.

If the river was whiskey I'd be a diving duck....but it isn't and I'm not.
 
I don't concede we're safer either way. Both sides try to use one hit instances to make a false point. Both sides use fallacious arguments and questionable statistics. Perhaps absolute safety isn't possible and in free society, we have to live with that.
 
Of course if one is to follow that reasoning one must also ignore the fact that there are indeed guns all over and that includes in areas where private ownership of firearms is very heavily restricted.

If the river was whiskey I'd be a diving duck....but it isn't and I'm not.

Only due to the fact that countries surrounding them have loose gun laws or no gun laws at all. It is not the restrictions that are the problem, it is the policing of illegal firearms from countries that don't have strict gun laws. Just look at mexico and you will see a good example. They get all their guns from us.
 
Only due to the fact that countries surrounding them have loose gun laws or no gun laws at all. It is not the restrictions that are the problem, it is the policing of illegal firearms from countries that don't have strict gun laws. Just look at mexico and you will see a good example. They get all their guns from us.

Mexico doesn't get all their guns from us. F&F, as serious as it is, is a drop in the bucket of all the guns in Mexico.

Seriously, when alcohol was banned here in the states did that stop people from getting alcohol? Do the restrictions on illegal drugs stop drugs from hitting the streets? What makes you think that a restriction on guns will be any different?
 
Deterrence in action. An armed society is a safer society.

Of course

America is a much safer place then Canada, the UK, Western Europe, and Japan

All because the US is armed
 
Mexico doesn't get all their guns from us. F&F, as serious as it is, is a drop in the bucket of all the guns in Mexico.

Seriously, when alcohol was banned here in the states did that stop people from getting alcohol? Do the restrictions on illegal drugs stop drugs from hitting the streets? What makes you think that a restriction on guns will be any different?

Alcohol and drugs are mental and psychological vices that are expectedly, hard to control. Gun ownership, Is nothing like drug or alcohol in that sense.
 
Of course

America is a much safer place then Canada, the UK, Western Europe, and Japan

All because the US is armed


Safer than the UK from general violent crime by 4x, according to some reports that no one has yet scientifically and rationally refuted in any meaningful way.



(hint: saying "oh that is ridiculous!" is not a scientific refutation. It is an unsupported opinion based on emotionalism.)
 
I don't concede we're safer either way. Both sides try to use one hit instances to make a false point. Both sides use fallacious arguments and questionable statistics. Perhaps absolute safety isn't possible and in free society, we have to live with that.


Mark the day, time, and post...we agree...It is impossible in a free society to be absolute in safety, which is why any honest police officer will tell you that they are not there to protect you, but rather to deter, and investigate after the fact. Protection is up to the individual.
 
Depending on which statistics you want to look at, the U.S. is safer, than some of those places.
Maybe because we're more armed, maybe not.

I would look at assaults, murders and rapes, I expect the countries and regions listed generally have lower rates then the US

The UK seems to have higher rates of assaults but lower murder rates
 
I would look at assaults, murders and rapes, I expect the countries and regions listed generally have lower rates then the US

The UK seems to have higher rates of assaults but lower murder rates

Yea, in some area's there are differences, in others not so much.
Rapes are higher in France than the U.S. as a point of contention but murders are lower.

Overall in France there are 1% more crime victims.
At least according to this.

NationMaster - Crime stats: France vs United States
 
Mexico doesn't get all their guns from us. F&F, as serious as it is, is a drop in the bucket of all the guns in Mexico.

Seriously, when alcohol was banned here in the states did that stop people from getting alcohol? Do the restrictions on illegal drugs stop drugs from hitting the streets? What makes you think that a restriction on guns will be any different?

And by the way, you are wrong in what you said.....
Report: Many weapons used by Mexican drug gangs originate in U.S. - CNN
 
Mark the day, time, and post...we agree...It is impossible in a free society to be absolute in safety, which is why any honest police officer will tell you that they are not there to protect you, but rather to deter, and investigate after the fact. Protection is up to the individual.

Entirely false! Law enforcements motto is to PROTECT and serve. It is the motto almost every police force is based on. If the police were there only to investigate after the fact, then why is so much money put in to protecting society? If this were true, calling 911 would be pointless. They would just tell you they could not do anything until you were dead or someone else was dead. Thats just insane.
 
Alcohol and drugs are mental and psychological vices that are expectedly, hard to control. Gun ownership, Is nothing like drug or alcohol in that sense.

But you were talking about the availability of guns not mental conditions before. I figured that I'd stick with the topic at hand but I should have known that whenever common sense blows an argument apart the lefties always choose to change to a different tune.
 
Entirely false! Law enforcements motto is to PROTECT and serve. It is the motto almost every police force is based on. If the police were there only to investigate after the fact, then why is so much money put in to protecting society? If this were true, calling 911 would be pointless. They would just tell you they could not do anything until you were dead or someone else was dead. Thats just insane.

Undermanned, overburdened, and out gunned in more than enough circumstances brother....That is just a fact...When trouble is breaking in the home within seconds, police are minutes away.
 


More than 70% of 29,284 firearms submitted to the U.S. Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for tracing by the Mexican government during 2009 and 2010 originated in the United States, according to the report.

You see that underlined part? That doesn't mean that all the guns in Mexico are sent to ATF for tracing. It means that only the guns which the Mexicans have reason to believe came from the US (primarily due to serial numbers) are sent to the ATF. If they pick up a FN FAL without a serial number it probably won't be submitted to ATF because it probably didn't originate in the US where we require serial numbers on all the firearms we manufacture.
 
Yea, in some area's there are differences, in others not so much.
Rapes are higher in France than the U.S. as a point of contention but murders are lower.

Overall in France there are 1% more crime victims.
At least according to this.

NationMaster - Crime stats: France vs United States

A pickpocket, a car prowling, a B&E are not violent crimes and would not be stopped by a person with a gun

I also wonder how many such crimes are unreported (in the US and in France and if that is an issue)
 
A pickpocket, a car prowling, a B&E are not violent crimes and would not be stopped by a person with a gun

I also wonder how many such crimes are unreported (in the US and in France and if that is an issue)

Probably lots, both by individuals and police.
I once had some teenagers throw a rock at my car, the police told me "what do you want us to do about it?"
 
But you were talking about the availability of guns not mental conditions before. I figured that I'd stick with the topic at hand but I should have known that whenever common sense blows an argument apart the lefties always choose to change to a different tune.

Well, if you want to cooralate the two, you have to take everything into consideration, not pick and choose. Gun control and Drug control are completely different issues and the strategy to combat both of them would be completely different due to the factors that drive the illegal trafficking of each. The solution to each would be vastly different and that is why you can not coorelate them to each other.
 
Undermanned, overburdened, and out gunned in more than enough circumstances brother....That is just a fact...When trouble is breaking in the home within seconds, police are minutes away.

Yes, and if guns were not so widely availabe to the average criminal, they would not be breaking in your house carrying them.
 
You see that underlined part? That doesn't mean that all the guns in Mexico are sent to ATF for tracing. It means that only the guns which the Mexicans have reason to believe came from the US (primarily due to serial numbers) are sent to the ATF. If they pick up a FN FAL without a serial number it probably won't be submitted to ATF because it probably didn't originate in the US where we require serial numbers on all the firearms we manufacture.

Regaurdless of the percentage, the number of weapons is still very high. Based on the numbers above, 20,500 weapons originated in the US. That is only in the span of a year, and only account for the weapons that were confiscated. That does not include the weapons that are there and being used. 20,500 weapons is only the tip of the iceburg when it comes to the amount of weapons that flow over the boarder. I know for sure that the mexican drug cartel are not lacking weapons due to the crackdown by the US and Mexico on weapons thru the boarder. Otherwise, the mexican military would not be outgunned by the drug lords. That is really saying something when just the weapons flowing out of the US supplying the drug lords is so massive, that they are armed better than even the Mexican military.
 
Back
Top Bottom