/k/, I just had an idea.
Antifunz say that "Common Sense" gun laws are worth it if they save just one life.
Here's an interesting situation:
A terrorist walks into a crowded concert hall with bombs and an illegal machine gun. It's illegal for citizens to own guns in this country. There are, say a hundred people in there, but nobody has a gun. The attacker has no resistance, and 100 people die. France, anybody?
Now let's say we give the audience opposite circumstances.
Let's say we give 15% of the audience MAC - 10's, and another 15% compact pistols, because any citizen of this hypothetical country can legally own a machine gun.
The shooter still is able to kill a few people, shortly before being turned into a bloody mess by the ensuing hail of .45 ACP. People still die, but many more have been saved by the citizenry with machine guns.
Therefore, if we have almost nonexistent gun laws, it will save many lives from mass shootings. This is because everybody that the shooter attacks will be able to shoot back, and with greater or equal force, due to the average Joe having just as much firepower as anybody else.
Anti gunners don't function on logic, and the money backers pushing this shit don't care about saving lives. It's all about control in the end.
To operate on their level is pointless. You should try that again, but add more pathos.
So the shooter starts shooting. Person A shoots back. Person B is not sure which is the good guy and which is the bad guy and shoots at Person A. Person C shoots Person B shooting at Person B and assumes that Person B is the bad guy. Person D and Person E are friends with Person B and so they shoot at Person C. Then you have all of the other people being hit by bullets flying around everywhere.
How exactly are the armed citizens going to distinguish between their allies and the terrorists? What exactly will keep these armed, unaffiliated, variably trained civilians from shooting up eachother in confusion and shooting bystanders alike?
Yeah, logic is not a liberal trait.
When confronted with logic, a libtard will often completely ignore the statement and change the topic, or in the case of more aggresive ones, attempt to deliberately mis-interpret what was said.
When confronting a liberal, attempt to slowly turn them to your side, for instance: start a conversation about one of their interests. Ask them how they feel about people wanting to crack down on it.(works great for DUDE WEED people) Work your way to saying, it may displease others, but its not criminal.
>Couldn't you say the same thing about guns?
Should I make it about ebul coppers with 'salt rifles trying to oppress African Americans, and how the "disadvantaged" need firepower to defend themselves from the priveliged?
My brain hurts typing this.
OR something along the lines of:
The gun allows the smallest, disabled woman to fend off the biggest, meanest rapist, the oppressed citizen to topple the mightiest of oppressors, etc.
The mass shooting scenario is so fucking retarded and I wish you dumbfucks would stop bringing it up.
A gun in a mass shooting is guaranteed to make shit a lot more complicated, not better. There have been if I recall correctly, two times a CHL holder has been in a mass shooting scenario and they elected to do nothing because there was too much chaos. There have been multiple of those "pretend" mass shootings where they give people wax-bullet guns, hosted by PROGUN organizations, and EVERY FUCKING TIME EVERYONE GETS SLAUGHTERED ANYWAY.
The REAL reason to carry is to protect against a random/imminent act of violence or a mugger or a rapist. That's what you should bring up when you mention carrying. Not these retarded hero fantasies full of holes.
"'common sense' gun laws" very name admits they are unreasonable but deliberate appeals to emotion.
There is a reason shootings virtually exclusively happen in gun free zones and gun repressive areas - schools, zoos, movie theaters, et cetera. When aiming to complete any objective you avoid unnecessary resistance.
>muh ft hood
bases are pretty fucking locked down on ccw
What we really need to protect the children is nationwide constitutional carry.
>Person B is not sure which is the good guy and which is the bad guy and shoots at Person A.
Yeah, this doesn't happen.
protip: anyone can buy a uniform
>s. There have been multiple of those "pretend" mass shootings where they give people wax-bullet guns, hosted by PROGUN organizations, and EVERY FUCKING TIME EVERYONE GETS SLAUGHTERED ANYWAY.
You simply stating that doesn't happen is not a refutation. People get confused in chaotic situations, terrorists dress as civilians, and everyones packing. I ask again, how are all of these armed citizens going to differentiate?
You're assuming people would take the shots, but that's a retarded assumption.
If there's even one innocent people in the line of sight, most people probably won't take the shot at all.
It's like that psychology experiment where they ask if they would be okay with one guy doing to save 10; almost everyone says that's cool, but when they ask whether they would KILL one guy to save ten, the answer is a resounding no.
>Should I make it about ebul coppers with 'salt rifles trying to oppress African Americans, and how the "disadvantaged" need firepower to defend themselves from the priveliged?
That's not just what you should make it about, that's *what it actually is.*
Firearms are the great equalizer. Even California was pro-gun until the black panthers open carry march.
Handguns are the primary target of gun laws everywhere. This is so universally consistent, a rare trait in the gun world, when dealing with state registries you typically classify them as handgun registries and non-handgun registries. New Jersey and New York, among several other states, require only pistols to be registered.
If it weren't for the Supreme Court FDR would have succeeded with his attempt to have pistols be Title II NFA firearms equal to machine guns, SBRs, and suppressors.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence was originally named The National Coalition to Ban Handguns.
The reason for this violation of individual liberty is the very nature of their existence. Handguns are cheap, light, and small. This makes them easy to carry, conceal, purchase, and store.
It should be noted that handguns are disproportionately less likely to kill someone when shot. While they represent nearly all assaults by firearm, a small portion of these result in death. Despite this, over three quarters of murders by gun are also committed with handguns. Though they represent a single-digit percentage of murders and assaults by firearm rifles overwhelmingly result in death.
Simply put, among concealed carriers less affluent persons are significantly more likely to have to use a firearm in self defense. African Americans are disproportionately disenfranchised.
People by and large don't actually pull the trigger without witnessing an actual crime. This is repeated throughout history.
However even when this does happen statistically if a third person can see the second shoot, they can also
Statistically if a third person can see the second shoot, they can also see the first. Your scenarios above entirely ignore body language, firearm type, and most importantly muzzle report. Someone who hears automatic gunfire with dozens of discharges followed by screams does not quite equal someone with a concealed firearm. It should also be mentioned that if the third person saw the second, they would also likely have seen that person draw their firearm.
But yes, with a hundred concealed carriers in a sealed stadium environment of a thousand someone would likely be shot in the confusion. The overall casualties would be orders of magnitude lower with defensive carriers, however.
Overall, you completely ignore the number one rule any concealed carry class would teach you: If you are not in immediate danger of death or bodily injury outside of the home don't shoot.
Stop making issues where there are none.
Your assuming and oversimplifying the scenario. People have widely varied training, weapons of choice, and body language, not to mention whatever prejudices they might hold. There is much room for confusion, and maybe this is a personal thing of mine but i genuinely dont like the idea of just throwing more guns in the picture just to lower the body count . i dont think it palatable for some wannabe-rambo to mow down 10 people to stop 1 terrorist a bit sooner and chalking up the collateral damage to "they new the risks". Even if he lowers the overall count, its not ok with me to give pass to all the others he wasted. I kinda want accuracy when it comes to this
>i dont think it palatable for some wannabe-rambo to mow down 10 people to stop 1 terrorist
A: It's unreasonable to guide policy based on rambo.
B: It's completely palatable to lose 10 to stop a mass shooter if the scenario provides him the opportunity to engage a large number of people.
Outside of your ridiculous notion, no, I am not assuming or oversimplifying the scenario. Moreover whether or not you are okay with firearms is irrelevant. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural individual right, infringement of which is prohibited under the second amendment.
You don't have the right to infringe on the rights of others because your feelings. Your feelings significance ends at the rights of others.
I never said anything about infringing on rights. What i did say was that i dont think its a good enough solution, and its not even proven to work. Also, people firing wildly and accruing massive casualties in their defense is not going to fly, there's a reason law enforcement tries to keep that ro a minimum.
No one is saying anything about restricting carrying or gun rights, just that it's stupid to suggest that more guns going off is always better.
And you are oversimplifying.
Would you still say it's okay to lose 10 people if they were all your family members and the survivors were BLM activists? Or what if the next shot from the shooter's gun was going to jam, and you friendly fired on innocents for no reasons?
>what if the next shot from the shooter's gun was going to jam
We aren't psychic. We have no idea of knowing when or if that is going to happen. When you are faced with danger, you have to act immediately, and don't have time to calculate every possibility.
>people firing wildly and accruing massive casualties in their defense is not going to fly
No one said it would. You talked about ethical justification, not legal justification.
>Would you still say it's okay to lose 10 people if they were all your family members and the survivors were BLM activists?
>Or what if the next shot from the shooter's gun was going to jam, and you friendly fired on innocents for no reasons?
What if a nuke went off after you finished? Emotional position doesn't get legal standing.
Done with the bait, peace.
I was talking about cultural acceptance, but yeah it'd be a legal nightmare as well. Im perfectly fine with a violent defence in these situations but it has to be dialed in. A movie theater full of armed citizens wondering who the threat is is a disaster waiting to happen.
That's my entire point.
It's chaos, and you don't know what's going on.
You forget that not shooting and fleeting is an option, and its the one reasonable people will pick if they're in a position to do so.
I'm all for more people being armed, to increases the chances that there is a guy in the RIGHT place but saying everyone should take reckless shots, no matter their position, because the shooter MIGHT kill more otherwise is just a stupid, stupid statement.
> hurr what is reading comprehension
It doesn't really matter, none of this matters!
It's all fucking bullshit! Fucking herd obsessions!
The point is, bureaucrats want to shove their shit down your throat because it's a game they've got plotted out in great detail. They couldn't even care if it was being done with guns, it could just as likely have become a vehicular rampage fad. The only difference would be that MRA pricks and islamists and the like would have their fair share of getting to hype these authoritarian measures rather than just feminist getting to cheer for it, if women were behind 51%+ of the carnage, and maybe even also if women were only responsible for a large minority of the carnage. But EVEN THEN it would all be the same, OKAY, they'd be pushing hard for "car control" measures, banning SUVs, pushing for softer bumpers, pushing for remote shutdown switches and the like, dumping money into funds for self driving car research, and likely even actually ENCOURAGING bullbars to be made to have a strong boogeyman to utilize provoking crass opposition to have something they can offer their "services" against.
Point is, there's various factors pushing people towards two of these fads, and there's a well oiled machine set up to get panic of this exact sort, in spite of the fact that it could be happening very similarly with straightforward arson or bombs.
The fact that all these people are even thinking about guns in relation to this shows that they're winning. That you're not even thinking about how this is about driven over the edge who would pick whatever accessible and dramatic rampage method there is.
Same think over in Europe, the arabs are picking whatever method seems most effective, and sometimes they actually do use bombs, they actually DO use a wide range of attack methods, but the EU is still eager to impose continent wide gun control in spite of very stringent gun regulation already in place when the guns used are illegally smuggled in like a whole lot of things!
It already happened OP, it's called Paris. Replace the .45ACP with 7.62x39 and illegal RPKs. The French government reacted with more gun control on the law abiding citizens despite overwhelming substantial evidence that the terrorists were migrants, their weapons weren't legally bought nor made in France, and that they were terrorists themselves.
It's always been like that, in the last comparable incident, which people should recall as an example for how guns clearly aren't even necessary for this when al-qaeda bombed those trains in madrid, the spanish government bent over backwards to try to blame ETA for it.
Try searching for "Active shooter scenario." There's a mix of training vids, simulations, and also raw propaganda from both sides. I don't fee like sorting through all the hits to find the realistic sims right now though.
OP situation is stupid because it assumes that having a gun matters. Just having a gun doesn't make you into Superman. You have to know how identify a shooter and how to make tactical decisions under fire, otherwise you're just painting a bullseye on your head against an enemy that already has the initiative. And heaven help you if there are multiple hostile shooters.
If you want a gun to matter, you have to have the training to back it up, otherwise it just makes you the first to die.
Speaking of which, what would /k/ think if tactical/active shooter training was required to get a CC permit? Is that considered "muh rights" or would it be considered a fair trade to have ownership/assault bans lifted? IE, if "gun control" was changed to "control your gun."
That's the whole point you twit, graphs, whatever silly pretentious sources they may or may not have, are simply NOT VISUAL ENOUGH.
See, what you would need is visuals, video or live interactions with people with their faces burned off. You would need someone burning down a large building, killing at least roughly as many people as Cho did, and then, for a grand finale, going into a gun free zone with a flamethrower and getting a few more.
There have been a couple of.instances where potential mass shootings weren't because of armed individuals. The Oregon community college shooter never entered the building of the one concealed carrier, and he wisely did not go looking for the shooter. There are several examples in the U.S. where armed citizens stopped a mass shooting before it really got rolling, but my favorite example comes from the Paris terror attacks. It wasn't widely reported in the media, but two Jihadists were cut down by a pair of Columbian drug runners before they could kill anyone. The Narcos were carrying illegally, of course.
I enjoy a good echo chamber from time to time. This was nice. Thanks Op
How about nobody has guns and everyone gets to live in disagreement? Mass shooting often don't occur when there isn't a gun to shoot
by mandatory, you mean an optional elective in schools with good funding. my highschool didn't even have a fucking shop class, you think they would have adopted a course on safe handling of guns?
hurr durr muh common sense
it's common sense that toddlers on my arbitrary list shouldn't have rights
it's common sense that salty rifles are evil and only for murdering children and teachers
it's common sense that you don't need more than a single shot rifle to hunt, so nothing else should be allowed
>muh OK Corral
Almost never ever happens, fuck, it barely happened there
Doesn't even have to involve logic, some lose their shit at the mere thought of opposing viewpoints
>YOUR SIGN IS FUCKING OFFENSIVE!!!
step 1. lift bans on automatic weapons and allow regular gun shops to sell them
step 2. tell ca, ny, and all other spud states to change their shit or secede (lol, ca seceding)
step 3. real freedom returns
You completely miss to point OP.
As a terrorist, your goal is to KILL citizens and not to go out somewhere and start shooting some people.
If every civilians wield some kind of firearm, the attackers would avoid the usage of any direct fire weapons, and look for another way to complete their task, for example, using bombs instead.
If everyone would be assinged with bomb search dogs as a countermeasure, the terrorists would change their strategy again and come up with a different approach like poisoning water supplies, and so on.
If they want to kill people, they will find a way to do so. All you can do is to invest in intel.
Why do we never hear news about civilians succesfully defending themselves against robbers/kebab/psychos? All we got are just school shootings, gang conflicts, and retarded people. (I admit that there might be some rare exceptions tough.)
Your opinion is just a stupid excuse to justify your gun laws. Let me point out that less strict laws would make the bad guys' life much easier when they want to access guns.
TL;DR;[spoiler]Guns are cool, but the majority of people playing with them are just retarded faggots like you, OP.[/spoiler]
Sry for the fuckton of grammar errors.
>we never see the news of people defending themselves
Because "Crime Averted, Life Resumes" as a headline garners less attention than something panic striking. Reddit has a sub detailing self defense news reports, but I won't bother looking up the name because it looks like you and reddit are already acquainted.
>terrorists are an infinite font of creativity so we should just not bother with preventative or retaliatory measures.
Holy shit I want to duct tape you to the back of a truck in Cologne with your pants down so you can get fucked in the ass. Really, they were gonna do it anyway since we're hopelessly outwitted.
IMO there should be a license for guns and one for CC
if you have the license, you can buy any gun you want including suppressors, coversion kits and all the shit
if you have the CC license, you can CC one weapon of your choice
this weapon need to be connected with your license
you can change the weapon at any time without notification, but you have to keep you license up to date too
Maybe if I was the only person in the room, and I, specifically was being aimed at. But in a room with 100 people, fleeing is difficult because of the crowds, and crowds make for a larger target.