Seven dead in Wisconsin after Deputy Sheriff opens fire.

[donfie]

So, "wish" and "should" are interchangeable words to you?

In the context that you made the statement, your "wish" that something happened has a direct correlation to your thinking it "should" happen.

To say: "I wish I could speak French" is one thing and signifies a desire of something for unstated reasons. To say: "I wish everyone spoke French then there would be no more misunderstandings" is another and signifies a desire for something with a specific goal in mind, ergo, in order to avoid misunderstandings people should all speak French.

The UK also has less individual freedom than the U.S., which is one of a long list of reasons we REVOLTED using ARMS, FROM ENGLAND.

Really? Please, show me some examples?

Several nations that have "strict gun control" have mass shootings, and mass killings.

Who?

That is laughable, has no concrete examples or cause and effect explanation, nor is it accurate.

See:

http://www.businesscontinuity.info/workplace.htm

If you want to debate gun control, start a thread, and I will shred your arguments in your own thread for you, so you can set the debate.

No. My Dad's bigger than yours.

[Chris]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Seven dead in Wisconsin after deputy opens fire - Yahoo! News FOXNews.com - Seven Dead, Including Shooter, After Wisconsin Rampage - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...-WISCONSIN.xml What a damn shame. And, these are the people, the only people, some want to have guns. All people have a right to defense, for reasons exactly like this. :(

I can agree with your sentiment, but I doubt there is anything those kids could have done with a handgun while possibly drunk -up against a deranged lunatic busting down the door with an AR-15 I doubt even you, quick draw mcgraw could whip out your trusty .44 quick enough in a party atmosphere to drop him, before he gets in a shot at you - (reminding you -he is using a semi auto) You would have to be, not drunk, and also carry your pistola in the small of your back, and be ready at all times. If thats a party (and you are a 14 year old kid) I doubt you are going to be carrying a handgun on your person 24/7.

Why not just look at this as a tragedy, a young punk ass who was never supposed to graduate the police academy, who was too young and immature to be holding guns.

Found this:

Deputy apparently shot self after rampage, says attorney general - CNN.com

more info

[Chris]

Quote by: BugsBunny07 I doubt the kids could have helped themselves, but if someone like me had been next door there probably would have been fewer casualties, and the shooter might have gone down a lot sooner.

I highly doubt it. It doesn't take long to kill people who are clustered up together in a party environment - using an AR-15 semi auto I believe all would have been dead before you got to your piece -however big. You would have confronted him when he was leaving like the story suggests, and may have killed him, but the damage would have been done.

Quote by: BugsBunny07 I hate to get into hypatheticals here but if I anticipate someone giving me that sort of trouble I would eliminate them first. If someone other than a roommate comes barging in without knocking and waiting at the door, they will see the wrong end of gun before they see me. Plus, if it's a Sunday morning I'm sure I'll probably be in a pissy mood.

I think the point is you wouldn't be able to react fast enough.

the "official" story:

According to Van Hollen, Peterson, while off-duty shortly before 3 a.m. Sunday, entered an apartment where the seven young men and women had gathered. While there, Van Hollen said, he apparently got into an argument with Jordanne Murray, accusing her of having a relationship with another person. "The argument got heated, and Murray demanded he leave," the attorney general said. "Peterson left, and returned minutes later," breaking down the door and opening fire with an AR-15 rifle, of the type he was issued by the Forest County Sheriff's Department. Police said Peterson fired about 30 rounds. Less than 20 minutes later, a patrolling Crandon police officer, having heard gunfire, reported it and approached the apartment building to investigate, Van Hollen said. The officer, identified as Greg Carter, 21, reported seeing Peterson exit the building with a rifle and momentarily losing sight of him. He then "heard multiple rounds of gunfire" as Carter's windshield burst. As Carter retreated, Peterson escaped. Van Hollen said that Peterson apparently "drove aimlessly around the northern part of the state" for several hours and called in false reports to local police in an attempt to throw those searching for him off the trail. Peterson finally ended up at a cabin in the town of Argonne shortly before 8 a.m. There, in the presence of friends, he confessed to the shooting, handed over the AR-15 and two other rifles, and left the cabin. After meeting with some of his family members, he returned to the cabin at about 9:15 a.m. Law enforcement agencies arrived on the scene about 15 minutes later, Van Hollen said. Peterson was shot by a .40-caliber handgun, Van Hollen said, and his body was found with his personal .40-caliber Glock. All seven victims were students or graduates of Crandon High School, from which Peterson also was a graduate.

So they guy who confronted him got shot at.

[donfie]

Same here. I am not trying to make any point in this thread other than the fact that owning, knowing how to use, and having AVAILABLE a gun is the best method of defense.

Which was posted in #6 by Osborn.

As far as this and only this proposition goes I think Chris has nailed it.

Yes. When taken literally and without context the proposition is true.

But, in the context of the article quoted, Chris is absolutely correct that there is a very small possibility that any of the victims would have had time to react in any significant way nor could any neighbour have had the time to intervene on behalf of those victims before it was too late for all the reasons that Chris stated.

So, in the context of the article provided and for this situtation, the proposition that having a gun available and a person trained to use it would not have made any difference to the tragic outcome.

As Chris stated, the key component was time. No matter how well trained and well armed, if no time was available to react then the issue of arms becomes redundant and any claim to the contrary is baseless bragging.

[Osborn F Enready]

donfie said: In the context that you made the statement, your "wish" that something happened has a direct correlation to your thinking it "should" happen.

People are individuals. I was expressing the sentiment that I wish more people would take their responsibility to protect themselves, and their loved ones, more seriously.

I didn't say, which you implied, that all people should be armed from kindergarteners to octegenarians.

Is that clear enough as to what "I said"?

donfie said: Really? Please, show me some examples?

Examples of why we revolted, or why you are less free? I will assume you mean less free.... and respond in kind.

Security cameras in every imaginable public place.
BBC News | SCI/TECH | Surveillance cameras to predict behaviour

No right to own arms for personal defense, or protection from government tyranny.
Mike Burke

There are several other areas, almost every area listed in the Bill of Rights under the American Constitution.
EducationforFreedom

donfie said: Who?

The point is, people owning guns may have an effect of the occassional "wingnut" going crazy, shooting innocent people, killing maybe 50 people.(this number would be kept down by more citizens invoking their right to bear arms for defense) Is that better or worse than allowing people to own guns individually, which is the check on nations governments to prevent them from killing hundreds or thousands?

China: Mao's reign of terror, 1949-65 20 million plus deaths[2,4,5]

USSR: Stalin's terror, 1936-53 20 million plus deaths [1,2,5]

Russia/USSR:civilian deaths by Nazis 7-12 million deaths [4,5]

Europe: The Holocaust, 1933-45 6 million deaths [1,4]

Eritrea: vs Cuba/Ethiopia, 1961-91,
inc. 1 mil. famine deaths 1984-85 2 million deaths[4]

Burundi: Tutsi slaughter of Hutus, 1972 300,000 deaths[8]

Bosnia: "Ethnic cleansing", 1992- 200,000 deaths [3]

China: Civil war, 1945-49 1.2 million deaths[4]

Sudan: Civil war, 1955-72, 1983-
(incl. 250,000 famine deaths in 1988) 1 million deaths [4]


Suddenly, losing 10, 20 or 30 people in the rare, and occassional statistic of mass shootings by privately owned arms pales in comparison, does it not?

The greater threat to innocent life, is by disarming the public, and leaving them at the mercy of nations, armies and corrupt governments for protection.

As Ghandi said:
'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.

one case against gun control, among many:
Trust the People: The Case Against Gun Control

another case:
Why Economists Tend to Oppose Gun Control Laws - Mises Institute

donfie said: No. My Dad's bigger than yours.

???

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Osborn ???

He doesn't want to get into a values pissing contest like these always turn into.

[Osborn F Enready]

donfie said: But, in the context of the article quoted, Chris is absolutely correct that there is a very small possibility that any of the victims would have had time to react in any significant way nor could any neighbour have had the time to intervene on behalf of those victims before it was too late for all the reasons that Chris stated.

I would like to show you what real training does, if I may.

In this video clip, which is from a Miami Vice episode, Jim Zubiena, a professional gun handler demonstrates a flawless "Mozambique" draw, aquire, fire technique. His speed and accuracy are contest winning, prime example of what proper training and regular practice can provide.
The Gun Zone -- Miami Vice

Obviously, if you watched the film clip, you can see that within the span of slightly over one second, he completes a "clear, draw, raise, aquire, fire-fire-fire" series of actions, terminating a person who slightly over one second ago, had complete control of the situation.(enough time to foolishly take his eyes off the assasin, also enough time to die) With training and proper weapon handling, as Mr Zubiena demonstrates, you can expect all three shots to be within a 4"X5" index card using a .45 ACP, which is a kill.

This is an example of "the high end" that you can attain through proper training.

Having the ability to do the same within 5-10 or even 15 seconds, would have saved lives in the Wisconsin shooting, and if a responsible adult was present, this could have been possible.

[Zeebadee]

Pardon me while I search through the back episodes of "Walker, Texas Ranger" and find where an armed perp can be disarmed and immobilized without the use of a firearm.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: ruksak To be fair, the kids were eating pizza and watching movies. Even if they were armed and trained, it would have made no difference in this particular case. They were ambushed. That being said, kids are capable of defending themselves, and they have a right to do so. My eight year old daughter has a damn fine shot with her .22 Marlin rifle. I would think if she was a teen and at home alone and had the opportunity, she would be something to be dealt with.

The problem with a society where absolutely everybody is armed is that there are innumerable arguments and breakups and fights that get people about as mad as they can possibly be. We had regular brawls at my highschool, and people got hurt. None of them died; its difficult to strangle somebody with ten people all trying to pry your fingers off, but the lethal intent was still there. These minor fights would all be lethal for somebody everybody had a gun...the equation you want balances increased accidental deaths and spur of the moment homicides vs decreased incidents of people being able to shoot up an entire school or movie theater. Its not exactly clear how it would work out because to my knowledge nobody has tried this and given everybody over eight a gun in any city for any length of time...but I think it wouldn't be pretty.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Zeebadee Pardon me while I search through the back episodes of "Walker, Texas Ranger" and find where an armed perp can be disarmed and immobilized without the use of a firearm.

In the event that you ever have to do it:

YouTube - How to Disarm an Attacker With a Gun

I learned how to do that sort of stuff in taekwondo. It works better than you'd think, or at least it does if they're stupid enough to put the gun (airsoft gun for practice purposes) right up to your face or your kidneys.

What I really want to see is a society where everybody has tazer darts all the time. Its not ideal but you still couldn't shoot up a whole school.

[Osborn F Enready]

Zee said: Pardon me while I search through the back episodes of "Walker, Texas Ranger" and find where an armed perp can be disarmed and immobilized without the use of a firearm.

Hey, that is simply BS.

Zubiena, in the clip I posted is a PROFESSIONAL GUN HANDLER, not a movie star.

He did the part in Miami Vice because Michael Mann wanted REALITY in the scene.

Don't insult my intelligence Zee, and don't discredit my links before you open your eyes and actually watch them.

[Osborn F Enready]

Thanatos said: The problem with a society where absolutely everybody is armed is that there are innumerable arguments and breakups and fights that get people about as mad as they can possibly be. We had regular brawls at my highschool, and people got hurt. None of them died; its difficult to strangle somebody with ten people all trying to pry your fingers off, but the lethal intent was still there.

I grew up in the same kind of enviroment Thanatos, but, the thing that has changed is parents roll in their childrens lives, and the "attitude" regarding responsibility for their, and their kids actions.

I have been in several fights when I was younger, but none of those were lethal either, but today, kids have much more pressure on them from a lack of parenting, and an overwhelming peer pressure factor.

We shouldn't consider disarming instead of addressing the real problems, since it wouldn't address the real problem.

Thanatos said: These minor fights would all be lethal for somebody everybody had a gun...

Who is saying school kids should carry guns? Surely not I.

Thanatos said: the equation you want balances increased accidental deaths and spur of the moment homicides vs decreased incidents of people being able to shoot up an entire school or movie theater. Its not exactly clear how it would work out because to my knowledge nobody has tried this and given everybody over eight a gun in any city for any length of time...but I think it wouldn't be pretty.

Who said everyone over age 8 should have a gun????????

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Zubiena, in the clip I posted is a PROFESSIONAL GUN HANDLER, not a movie star.

So what has that got to do with the subject??

[Osborn F Enready]

Zee said: So what has that got to do with the subject??

The fact that you think I am using Miami Vice as the "validation" of my argument, when I am actually using a trained professional as the "validation" of my argument, who HAPPENED to appear on an episode of Miami Vice.

The subject, being gun training, and how it affects the outcome of a crisis situation if you are trained, have access to, and are familliar with guns.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The fact that you think I am using Miami Vice as the "validation" of my argument, when I am actually using a trained professional as the "validation" of my argument, who HAPPENED to appear on an episode of Miami Vice. The subject, being gun training, and how it affects the outcome of a crisis situation if you are trained, have access to, and are familliar with guns.

Again, what does a "trained professional" have to do with a shooter surprising a group of kids siting around eating pizza??

Are you saying that a trained, armed parent or guardian should be home at the ready 24/7 on the off chance that some crazy will burst in and start shooting?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I grew up in the same kind of enviroment Thanatos, but, the thing that has changed is parents roll in their childrens lives, and the "attitude" regarding responsibility for their, and their kids actions. I have been in several fights when I was younger, but none of those were lethal either, but today, kids have much more pressure on them from a lack of parenting, and an overwhelming peer pressure factor. We shouldn't consider disarming instead of addressing the real problems, since it wouldn't address the real problem.

Can we address the real problems and then disarm a bit?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Who is saying school kids should carry guns? Surely not I. Who said everyone over age 8 should have a gun????????

I was replying to Ruksak, not you. In your opinion, who should and shouldn't carry guns for personal defense?

[Osborn F Enready]

Zee said: Again, what does a "trained professional" have to do with a shooter surprising a group of kids siting around eating pizza??

1) A responsible adult should have been home. (that responsible adult could have also been a trained gun handler, and prevented unnecessary deaths.

2) If the responsible homeowner wasn't home, their child, if they were trained in gun handling, could have accessed a home protection firearm, and stopped unnecessary deaths.

The lack of a responsible gun handler, resulted in unnecessary deaths.

Zee said: Are you saying that a trained, armed parent or guardian should be home at the ready 24/7 on the off chance that some crazy will burst in and start shooting?

I am saying that at ANY TIME a trained firearms handler is present, that has access to their firearm, the threat of innocent loss of life by "mass shooters" goes down, exponentially.

[Osborn F Enready]

Thanatos said: Can we address the real problems and then disarm a bit?

People can choose to be armed or not armed, at the individual level.

Many people, such as myself, stay armed for the obvious reason, which is the FACT that being trained, armed and able is the best means to protect yourself from the number of threats that exist in the world today, regardless of where you live, what society you live in, or who your neighbors are.

Thanatos said: I was replying to Ruksak, not you. In your opinion, who should and shouldn't carry guns for personal defense?

Any legal age adult, 18 or older, should have full access to own, carry, operate and train with a firearm of their choice in a safe manner.
(all adults who wish to, should be able to keep and bear arms at their discretion)

Children also have a right to keep and bear arms, AT THE DISCRETION of their parents, as their parents are the ultimate holders of legal responsibility of their children.

In other words, children can't legally carry alone, but can use and operate and train with guns with parental supervision.

[BugsBunny07]

[quote=Chris;439387]I highly doubt it. It doesn't take long to kill people who are clustered up together in a party environment - using an AR-15 semi auto I believe all would have been dead before you got to your piece -however big. You would have confronted him when he was leaving like the story suggests, and may have killed him, but the damage would have been done...



...I think the point is you wouldn't be able to react fast enough...

...
QUOTE]

pt.s taken. I'd only seen what was on the tele in the chow hall, less details about the shooting itself.

Okay, so lets go with the idea that he was going to succeed in killing everybody, regardless. Still, my main concern with this case is the illustration of flaw in the whole idea of "only the army and cops should be trusted with weapons". Apparently they cant be trusted 100% either.

Here is what I gather from all this: Cops are human. They pull thier pants down to shit just like we do (usually). There should be no asumption that just because someone graduates police academy that they WONT do something bad. The idea should reciprocate, i.e. just because someone is NOT a cop doesnt mean they WILL do something bad.

[Osborn F Enready]

Thank you for addressing my original points Bugs, and I couldn't agree more with your summation.