• 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!

Do civilians with guns ever stop mass shootings?

Captain Adverse said:
One thing gun control advocates continue to ignore is that almost all mass shooting happen, as the article states, where the perpetrator expects little or no resistance.

That's why they target schools, churches, bars, movie theaters, etc., rather than police stations, gun clubs, or places where they know people with guns hang out.

This story properly points outs a number of times people with guns have stopped mass shooting attempts in their tracks, but the fact is...the knowledge that victims possess weapons is also a major deterrent in-and-of itself against mass shooter targeting.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

TurtleDude said:
the people LEAST likely to be deterred by gun bans, gun waiting periods, gun free zones, magazine limits and all the other idiotic crap the Bannerrhoid movement concocts as a pretense of crime control, are those most likely to cause mass killings.

the only sure way to stop a mass killing is to make sure those attacked can kill the attacker
Click to expand...

A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun...so simple and all these so called edjeecated morons, can't figure it out! Or they deny logic.

faithful_servant said:
Orlando would have never happened in most places. That was ONE GUY holding ~300 people hostage. He should have been "bum-rushed" and had his ass kicked after the first person he shot. I just don't get why people allowed themselves to be shot without fighting back en masse.
Click to expand...

I agree with your premise on this, but many of these folks are 1. not fighters and 2. numb with fear and can't move or react. and 3 if you will, do not prepare themselves for such an event.

I do the best I can in all my classes, to point these things out and have people prepare for the unexpected. It's a whole lot more than being aware of your surroundings.
 
faithful_servant said:
That's why I support the idea of "gun-heavy" zones, instead of gun-free zones. Teachers and school staff should have advanced firearms training as part of their continuing education and there should always be a contingent of armed teachers/staff in our schools. Put up BIG signs in front of the schools stating: "This is an armed campus. Any attacks on our children or staff will be met with deadly force."
Click to expand...

Logical.

HonestJoe said:
There’s no sure way to stop a mass killing and you can’t “make sure the attacked can kill” anyway. You can make it legal and easy for citizens to obtain and carry firearms but you can’t guarantee their presence in the event of a mass shooting or the competence of their response if they are.

I think you pro-gun people (gunnerhoids? ;) ) oversell your position just as much as the proponents of greater restrictions do.
Click to expand...

Well, I can't speak for all Pro-gun folks on here...but some of us have a good deal of experience in this sort of thing.
 
BrewerBob said:
While I agree with that it takes a certain mentality of person to do that and for there to be enough people with that mentality present in order for it to succeed. Maybe this incident will make people think more about their options and condition them to be more likely to act if they ever find themselves in that same situation. Think about plane hijackings. There will never be another successful plane hijacking in the US because our population's way of thinking has changed from "comply and hope for the best" to "Let's roll" when it comes to that scenario. We need to get people thinking that way when they are on the ground as well.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!!!!! :applaud

One armed and trained woman in the Sandy Hook office, could have taken out Adam Lanza....there were 3 of them....if they were all trained, the odds would have been really in their favor.

And since he shot his way into the building, they had ample warning....and the only option they had was to be shot and die.

The police arrived in 10 minutes....and Lanza was already finished with his evil deeds and offed himself by that time.

Instead of arming staff and training them well....the Stupid ****ing liberals want to ban guns!!! Idiocy!
 
The Sit-In by Demos, was nothing short of Stupid!
 
MickeyW said:
The Sit-In by Demos, was nothing short of Stupid!
Click to expand...

The main scumbag leading it once sat in for freedom. He's become a racist-statist and now sits in because he hates white conservative gun owners and wants to restrict their freedom
 
TurtleDude said:
The main scumbag leading it once sat in for freedom. He's become a racist-statist and now sits in because he hates white conservative gun owners and wants to restrict their freedom
Click to expand...

That's correct...he hates White privilege....which of course makes him a racist.
 
MickeyW said:
That's correct...he hates White privilege....which of course makes him a racist.
Click to expand...

The Anti Gun movement has a strong percentage of anti white racism in it
 
Captain Adverse said:
Evidence please. Oh, wait...I don't believe there were any efforts at accumulating such statistics back when the West was "Wild."

Now I actually studied the "Wild West," it was my Master's Degree minor. It really wasn't quite as "gunslinger" wild as you seem to think it was.

True, it was relatively lawless until organized into territories and Federal Judges and Marshalls were appointed. There were vast (if shrinking) swathes of land controlled by Native tribes, some towns had sheriffs or constables, there were issues with Mexico on who controlled/owned what over time, but you need to stop getting your ideas from watching cowboy-and-indian western movies.
Click to expand...

cabse5 said:
There's this link for your perusal. De-mythologizing the Wild West: gun laws were actually stricter then than now The wild actually had stricter gun control laws than now...because of gun violence.

Then there's this link Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today? Evidently, there was such gun violence in the wild west that sheriffs had guns dropped off outside the city limits and tokens issued to the gun possessor.
Click to expand...
Maybe the local sheriff was against the littering caused by too many empty whiskey bottles shot up? Against the destruction of orchards caused by too many apples shot up? Why do you suppose the local sheriff needed to confiscate guns at the city limits?
 
cabse5 said:
Maybe the local sheriff was against the littering caused by too many empty whiskey bottles shot up? Against the destruction of orchards caused by too many apples shot up? Why do you suppose the local sheriff needed to confiscate guns at the city limits?
Click to expand...

Changing the goal posts? You made a hasty generalization with no statistical basis to back it up.

Now you are trying to drag us down a new road discussing early gun control laws (discussed elsewhere in several threads) when this thread is about mass shootings. :naughty

Just accept that you spoke out of turn and move on.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Changing the goal posts? You made a hasty generalization with no statistical basis to back it up.

Now you are trying to drag us down a new road discussing early gun control laws (discussed elsewhere in several threads) when this thread is about mass shootings. :naughty

Just accept that you spoke out of turn and move on.
Click to expand...
Not changing the posts. Am refuting your post that there was not enough gun violence in the 'wild west' to merit consideration and that everyone, capably armed, will inhibit gun violence.
Explain the need for sheriffs of cattle towns to collect guns at the city limits. Explain why there was more gun control in the 'wild west' then there is now. Has the law concerning guns changed from then to now?
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Not changing the posts. 1 & 2. Am refuting your post that there was not enough gun violence in the 'wild west' to merit consideration and that everyone, capably armed, will inhibit gun violence.
3 & 4. Explain the need for sheriffs of cattle towns to collect guns at the city limits. Explain why there was more gun control in the 'wild west' then there is now? Has the law concerning guns changed from then to now?
Click to expand...

1. Now you are putting words in my mouth.

2. You made a hasty generalization without factual basis.

3. You are trying to change the topic from mass shootings to early gun control.

4. I don't have to go down that path with you, as you are not the boss of me...stick to the original topic.

Meanwhile, do your research by reviewing responses (including my own) in threads dedicated to that new topic you are trying to introduce.
 
Captain Adverse said:
One thing gun control advocates continue to ignore is that almost all mass shooting happen, as the article states, where the perpetrator expects little or no resistance.

That's why they target schools, churches, bars, movie theaters, etc., rather than police stations, gun clubs, or places where they know people with guns hang out.

This story properly points outs a number of times people with guns have stopped mass shooting attempts in their tracks, but the fact is...the knowledge that victims possess weapons is also a major deterrent in-and-of itself against mass shooter targeting.
Click to expand...

Captain Adverse said:
Evidence please. Oh, wait...I don't believe there were any efforts at accumulating such statistics back when the West was "Wild."

Now I actually studied the "Wild West," it was my Master's Degree minor. It really wasn't quite as "gunslinger" wild as you seem to think it was.

True, it was relatively lawless until organized into territories and Federal Judges and Marshalls were appointed. There were vast (if shrinking) swathes of land controlled by Native tribes, some towns had sheriffs or constables, there were issues with Mexico on who controlled/owned what over time, but you need to stop getting your ideas from watching cowboy-and-indian western movies.
Click to expand...

Captain Adverse said:
1. Now you are putting words in my mouth.

2. You made a hasty generalization without factual basis.

3. You are trying to change the topic from mass shootings to early gun control.

4. I don't have to go down that path with you, as you are not the boss of me...stick to the original topic.

Meanwhile, do your research by reviewing responses (including my own) in threads dedicated to that new topic you are trying to introduce.
Click to expand...
Am I putting words in your mouth? Is not the fact that some sheriffs of cattle towns in the 'wild west' had to collect guns at city limits denote some need for sheriffs to force less gun violence in the town? That gun control was used in the 'wild west' much more so than now? Were the actions of those sheriffs unconstitutional?
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Maybe the local sheriff was against the littering caused by too many empty whiskey bottles shot up? Against the destruction of orchards caused by too many apples shot up? Why do you suppose the local sheriff needed to confiscate guns at the city limits?
Click to expand...

because many sheriffs were about one step above a crime boss and didn't want any competition? and that sort of city law wasn't all that common.
 
cabse5 said:
Am I putting words in your mouth? Is not the fact that some sheriffs of cattle towns in the 'wild west' had to collect guns at city limits denote some need for sheriffs to force less gun violence in the town? That gun control was used in the 'wild west' much more so than now? Were the actions of those sheriffs unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

that was action at a local level and I doubt people in such fairly primitive towns were in a position to file a civil rights suit under their own state constitution given the fact that a federal or state judge might not appear but once every year or two and most of those towns had a high number of transients. That was not federal action
 
TurtleDude said:
that was action at a local level and I doubt people in such fairly primitive towns were in a position to file a civil rights suit under their own state constitution given the fact that a federal or state judge might not appear but once every year or two and most of those towns had a high number of transients. That was not federal action
Click to expand...
Old west cattle towns denying someone their second amendment right to have a gun didn't warrant federal action???
 
cabse5 said:
Old west cattle towns denying someone their second amendment right to have a gun didn't warrant federal action???
Click to expand...

are you unaware that the courts didn't see the second amendment as actually preventing state action until McDonald v Chicago? Sad but true-the second amendment SHOULD have been incorporated by the 14th and then applied to the states when the USSC started doing that about 100 years ago but it was only recently that this happened
 
cabse5 said:
Am I putting words in your mouth? Is not the fact that some sheriffs of cattle towns in the 'wild west' had to collect guns at city limits denote some need for sheriffs to force less gun violence in the town? That gun control was used in the 'wild west' much more so than now? Were the actions of those sheriffs unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

What have ANY of your off-topic questions to do with "mass shootings?"

And YES...simply reading through my responses you quoted shows that you are "putting words in my mouth;" Trying to associate what I stated with the point you are trying to argue.

Now read my tagline. :coffeepap:
 
cabse5 said:
Maybe the local sheriff was against the littering caused by too many empty whiskey bottles shot up? Against the destruction of orchards caused by too many apples shot up? Why do you suppose the local sheriff needed to confiscate guns at the city limits?
Click to expand...

You are speaking of a few cities/towns. Wichita, Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge Is your own history not known? As such crime was almost unheard of but there were many testosterone and whiskey fuelled killings which were deemed fair fights. In particular the mining towns had high rates of such violence. Woman and children were safe at any time of the day or night.

People have been killing each other for a very long time, long before guns were around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom