No Guns Allowed at the Texas State Fair[W:109]

Visbek said:

:roll:

In that incident, a bunch of young black kids got into fights, and randomly assaulted people on the way out. They were unarmed. There was no evidence of racial motivation or animus, except (surprise!) white people assuming it. Untrained citizens carrying firearms would have only made the situation worse.



What the what?

A sole woman with a box cutter attacked someone at a state fair. She didn't go on a mass rampage, trying to murder hundreds of people. The outcomes would not have been better if an untrained civilian went all Rambo and pulled a gun on her.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the dozens of state fairs which operate every year are deeply unsafe, because of one incident in 2011, and another in 2017? Are we really supposed to believe that violent threats lurk around every corner -- even as crime rates have been dropping for decades?



lol

Did you actually read that document?

The NRA shut down pretty much all funding for the CDC to do research into anything related to firearm harm and death years ago. In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama issued an EO "directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of the causes of firearm violence, the interventions that might prevent it, and strategies to minimize its public health burden. One of these executive orders noted that “in addition to being a law enforcement challenge, firearm violence is also a serious public health issue that affects thousands of individuals, families, and communities across the Nation.”

I.e. it was Obama trying to build the case that, despite NRA resistance, the CDC should be treating firearm violence as a threat to public health, and should be researching the issue.

The passage you cited was one sentence from one paragraph from that 112-page document, which was arguing that more research into firearm self-defense was needed. The CDC hadn't done any research. It wasn't saying that the study was correct. It was pointing out that the research is all over the place, that it's often based in questionable self-reporting.

Oh, and that study the CDC mentioned? It's the Kleck study, which is rife with problems. E.g. Kleck's numbers suggest that crime victims were 3-4 times more likely to carry firearms than the offenders; it was conducted via phone survey, which deliberately asked for the male head of household, and parts of the US were oversampled. It's self-reported, which causes all sorts of issues, including people acting aggressively and justifying it as self-defense.

And guess what? The study I cited was one type of research the report said should be done, and it was published 2 years after that CDC report.

Click to expand...

Media_Truth said:

Good thing nobody had a gun. As it was, there were no deaths. Now they can round up the criminals, without any killing. Sounds like everyday news from Great Britain, Australia, Canada, Poland, and Japan.

Click to expand...

Media_Truth said:

Good thing nobody had a gun. As it was, there were no deaths. Now they can round up the criminals, without any killing. Sounds like everyday news from Great Britain, Australia, Canada, Poland, and Japan.

Click to expand...

Media_Truth said:

Don't have too many opposing views in that setting, do you? Do they serve alcohol? Do you think I'd get shot, if I held up a "Revoke Amendment 2" sign?

Click to expand...

Visbek said:

...yes, this is a common method for thinking about risk and reasons. The fact that you indulged in the same technique, of course, invalidates any protests against offering hypothetical scenarios.



Uh, no. That doesn't even make sense.

I assume you're referring to the mass shooter -- you didn't bother to make it clear, which does not help your position. Anyway:
• There should be no doubt that at a gas station, a small store, or even a crowded restaurant, you're going to have fewer people than one of the busiest and popular state fairs in the US.
• You, uh, do know that around 3 million people attend the fair, over 24 days?
• The thing about crowds? It isn't always easy to scatter. There may or may not be room to run; you may get run into by someone who is fleeing; you may run into someone while fleeing; you might not even know where the firing is coming from.

A few crowd shots, by the way.

You're missing the point. Again:

- Homicidal shooter opens fire.
- Defensive shooter opens fire. (Assuming they weren't hit in the first round of firing.)
- Defensive shooter might hit innocent bystanders, especially if he or she has neither sufficient training nor experience to handle the situation, doesn't have a clear shot, can't properly identify the shooter, and so forth.
- If the homicidal shooter isn't incapacitated immediately, he may return fire, harming the defensive shooter. (And more bystanders, but that's the mass shooter's goal in the first place. Still, I doubt the people near the defensive shooter would appreciate the subsequent hail of bullets.)
- Anyone else -- security, LEOs, more armed civilians -- who charge into the fray and sees a person holding a gun won't know, as if by magic, whether that's the attacker or a defender. Needless to say, that isn't likely to produce a good outcome.



:roll:

Security uses metal detectors, they search bags, they search coolers, they've installed security cameras. They're not relying on the Honor System.



No, it's because he or she is trained. They know what to do. Some overweight middle-aged civilian with a Rambo complex, who has never dealt with any sort of situation like this, could produce some very bad outcomes if they try to stop an active shooter.



Yes, because no one in American drives while intoxicated, or gets into fights....

Again, there are 3 million people attending the fair. I'm sure that the overwhelming majority are good, responsible, normal people who want to relax and have a good time. The thing is, all it takes is one drunk idiot with a gun to make a real mess of things.

And of course, in this particular situation, if everyone is prevented from carrying a firearm, you're not going to need a firearm to defend yourself. What a concept.

Click to expand...

BretJ said:

What if....bad guy starts shooting. Good guy with gun does not fire. Bad guy with gun continues shooting. Good guy with gun continues not to shoot for fear of hitting bystander, confusing police or litigation. Bad guy continues to shoot. Police show up. Firefight ensues. Bystanders get shot. Yeah....your scenario is a real winner...

Click to expand...

Visbek said:

:roll:

My point is that allowing citizens to bring guns into the state fair, with the expectation that they will be needed in order to stop a mass shooting, is rather absurd. Two people firing guns at each other does not ultimately make people safer, and certainly does nothing to protect innocent bystanders. Nor do we actually see mass shootings in progress stopped by untrained armed civilians.

So: The real winner is "make sure that no one can bring a gun into the crowded event in the first place." Get it? Not too complex, right?

Click to expand...

BretJ said:

If that is possible, certainly. If not, no harm comes from me carrying a firearm. As far as two people shooting at each other, the bad guy will continue to shoot until he is stopped whether anyone engages him or not. If somone does engage him in a firefight, there is the potential that he will be stopped without bystanders being shot. Without engaging, the gunman will continue racking up a body count. Not too complex right?

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

gun haters don't want anyone to be able to fight back against armed criminals

there are reasons for this

1) some identify with criminals
2) some hate lawful gun owners
3) some think disarming honest people will give big government more power
4) some project their own fear and incompetence onto others-they pass laws to keep people like themselves from being armed
5) some are pillow headed idealists who want to take a stand "against violence"

whatever reason, the Disarm the victim crowd is an enemy to our safety

Click to expand...

vegas giants said:

I'm a lawyer! Lol

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

whatever you say vegas. I see your credibility is really benefiting from such silly lies

Click to expand...

vegas giants said:

You lost your credibility long ago. Bring something to the debate because this is just a waste of time

Click to expand...

Media_Truth said:

But, but, but --- if we all carried firearms, we'd all be safer. :roll:

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

IF someone were to post a poll on which poster has more credibility on gun issues-how do you think it would turn out-you vs me? You have only been on this board less than half a year so "long ago" means what-or were you here under another handle?

what is a waste of time is someone "proving" a gun law is useful with crap like

IT WORKS GREAT
ITS A HUGE SUCCESS

with nothing else ever

Click to expand...

BretJ said:

If that is possible, certainly. If not, no harm comes from me carrying a firearm. As far as two people shooting at each other, the bad guy will continue to shoot until he is stopped whether anyone engages him or not.

Click to expand...

If somone does engage him in a firefight, there is the potential that he will be stopped without bystanders being shot.

Click to expand...

Visbek said:

Oh, you mean like... tackling him while he or she is reloading? That's actually more common than an untrained citizen stopping a shooting in progress.



And again:

1) If the defensive shooter is untrained, he or she is very likely to hit some innocent bystanders, and may not drop the shooter. (Especially when the shooter goes the extra mile and wears body armor.) Somehow, twice as many bullets flying in a crowd just does not sound like a good idea.

2) Your position also presumes that the defensive shooter has a clear line of sight, can fire accurately in this type of situation, and won't immediately become target #1 (and possibly get injured or killed) by the aggressive shooter. Not to mention that the defensive shooter has to a) properly identify the aggressive shooter while being shot at, and b) can manage to get into a good position while being shot at.

3) It should be screamingly obvious that the safer option here is to make sure that no one has firearms in the crowded event in the first place.

Click to expand...

BretJ said:

I do not disagree with option 3 at all if it can be done. However, unless that can be done, I have no problem with lawful individuals carrying.

Click to expand...

You are more concerned with an armed individual possibly shooting bystanders, which incidently occurs with police officers more often. I am more concerned with the greater number of casualties that will occur unabated until police arrive such has happened in the majority of mass shootings. Are you claiming that without armed intervention, the shooter will kill fewer people until law enforcement arrive?

Click to expand...

Visbek said:

Oh, you mean like... tackling him while he or she is reloading? That's actually more common than an untrained citizen stopping a shooting in progress.



And again:

1) If the defensive shooter is untrained, he or she is very likely to hit some innocent bystanders, and may not drop the shooter. (Especially when the shooter goes the extra mile and wears body armor.) Somehow, twice as many bullets flying in a crowd just does not sound like a good idea.

2) Your position also presumes that the defensive shooter has a clear line of sight, can fire accurately in this type of situation, and won't immediately become target #1 (and possibly get injured or killed) by the aggressive shooter. Not to mention that the defensive shooter has to a) properly identify the aggressive shooter while being shot at, and b) can manage to get into a good position while being shot at.

3) It should be screamingly obvious that the safer option here is to make sure that no one has firearms in the crowded event in the first place.

Click to expand...

Visbek said:

It's not difficult. They're going to use metal detectors at the gate. Events do this all the time. Donezo.



I'm claiming that there is no reason to believe that an untrained civilian will be able to properly and effectively respond to a situation like this. Even people who are trained will find it to be a challenge.

Statistically, it's rare. An analysis by the FBI showed that civilians stopped a mass shooting, using firearms, a whopping 3% of the time. The attacker was subdued by civilians using other means (usually tackling) 16% of the time. Most of the time, the attacker commits suicide (53%) or police stops the attacker (38%). (https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/active-shooter-events-from-2000-to-2012)

And again, civilians opening fire on the shooter just makes the job harder for law enforcement.

Consider the case of Dan Bilzerian, YouTuber extraordinaire (and failed SEAL trainee), who was at the Las Vegas concert during the shooting. As the assailant was firing on the crowd, Dan was crouching behind some barriers, and a few officers ran over and hid behind the same barriers. Dan demanded that a cop give him a gun so he could help out. Needless to say, his request was impolitely refused. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnwYzY4ueYc)

Even if Bilzerian was able to obtain a gun, what would have happened? How would police react to an armed civilian, running around the festival grounds, carrying a gun? That should be screamingly obvious to anyone who doesn't live in a testosterone-fueled fantasy world: LEOs would be all over him, assuming he's the shooter. He could even get shot by the police.

So, what does law enforcment suggest you do? Their suggestion is, in the following order: Run, Hide, Fight. If possible, you should try to get away from the shooting, as fast as you can, and help people escape. If you can't run, you should hide, block a door, stay out of the shooter's sight, turn off your cell phone ringer. You should only fight as a last resort, and only if you are in imminent danger. I'm going to go out on a limb and say, yeah, they have reasons why they did not list "Run into the room, guns blazing" as Step 1.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/active-shooter-pocket-card-508.pdf

Click to expand...

BretJ said:

If that is possible, certainly. If not, no harm comes from me carrying a firearm. As far as two people shooting at each other, the bad guy will continue to shoot until he is stopped whether anyone engages him or not. If somone does engage him in a firefight, there is the potential that he will be stopped without bystanders being shot. Without engaging, the gunman will continue racking up a body count. Not too complex right?

Click to expand...

Media_Truth said:

As stated, there were scanners at the entry point. If a bad guy does get a gun into the Fair (a big IF), and start shooting, there are plenty of officers around, who are trained in how to handle the situation. You are not!

Click to expand...

RetiredUSN said:

Plenty of malls, sporting events......etc. etc. etc Have the right to declare "NO GUNS"

What sort of points are you trying to score here?

My gun will help keep me safe on the job and at home, or at least not go down with a girlish whimper by succumbing to some asshole thug.

Click to expand...

Media_Truth said:

Glad to hear that you accept their ban on firearms at these events. The NRA logic, however, is that everybody would be safer, if they allowed firearms. And many on this thread agree.

As somebody mentioned, a discharge of firearms in a massive crowd, would lead to pandemonium. If a Vigilante tries to take down the bad guy, and the Cops show up, they won't know who to confront. So why does the NRA and it's adherents on these threads adopt this stance? Because - as populations get larger, this is exactly the case in everyday societies. New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles streets have similar crowds on a daily basis. For the NRA to accept the "bans on guns in big crowd events" view would be to say that the 2nd Amendment no longer fits everyday situations in the US.

Make sense?

Click to expand...

Media_Truth said:

As stated, there were scanners at the entry point. If a bad guy does get a gun into the Fair (a big IF), and start shooting, there are plenty of officers around, who are trained in how to handle the situation. You are not!

Click to expand...