Multiple people shot at Colorado Walmart

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I just have to shake my head at this fantasy where life is like an action movie and the "responsible" gun owner is right there to stop the "criminal" or "terrorist" when the shooting starts...or this idea that a stockpile of gun is the patriots way of preparing for when an oppressive government decides that it's time to enslave the populace.

 

This love affair with guns has created an unimaginable mess, where shooting rampages garner only momentary attention and are then forgotten, with no desire to fix the problem.

 

As has been stated many times before: A gun in the home is far more likely to kill a family member, than it is an intruder. This is the reality of the gun culture in the US:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/03/texas-mom-accused-killing-2-kids-hours-after-deputies-visit-home.html

Two innocent children are dead and a family ruined, because a mentally unbalanced woman had easy access to a gun. Ironically, I'm betting that gun was in the house to protect those children.

 

Wake up America. People are dying and you all want to pretend you're Dirty Harry....

What a stupid argument you just made.  Are you really blaming a gun as the reason for this, do you really think that had this women not have had a gun that this event wouldn't have happen? 

 

I'm guessing that's why this same situation didn't happen in BC....oh wait....

 

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/mentally-ill-father-who-killed-his-three-kids-up-for-review-in-bc/article35079050/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

 

Quote

Schoenborn stabbed his 10-year-old daughter Kaitlynne and smothered his two sons Max and Cordon, eight and five, at the family's home in Merritt in April 2008. 

 

 

 

 

[RUPERTKBD]

6 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

What a stupid argument you just made.  Are you really blaming a gun as the reason for this, do you really think that had this women not have had a gun that this event wouldn't have happen? 

 

I'm guessing that's why this same situation didn't happen in BC....oh wait....

 

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/mentally-ill-father-who-killed-his-three-kids-up-for-review-in-bc/article35079050/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

What's "stupid" is that you missed the main point. That being a gun in the house is far more likely to kill a family member that an intruder.

 

I guess you're not "smart" enough to pick up on the obvious....

[Scottish⑦Canuck]

"Do you really think that they wouldn't have been killed if she didn't have access to a gun?"

 

Yes. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

8 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

What's "stupid" is that you missed the main point. That being a gun in the house is far more likely to kill a family member that an intruder.

 

I guess you're not "smart" enough to pick up on the obvious....

Guess you ignored the numbers that hippy just posted about all gun incidents. 

 

Home Invasion2 2,083

Defensive Use2 1,706

Unintentional Shooting2 1,686

 

 

3 hours ago, Scottish⑦Canuck said:

"Do you really think that they wouldn't have been killed if she didn't have access to a gun?"

 

Yes. 

You people are exactly what gives the anti gun crowed a bad name. Emotional responses and not a lot of logical ones. Hence why I posted a simIlar situation where there was no gun involved. The gun is the instrument not the cause. Learn the difference. If you really believe the gun was the cause and not the mental illness, then there’s really no point in having a discussion. 

[inane]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Guess you ignored the numbers that hippy just posted about all gun incidents. 

 

Home Invasion2 2,083

Defensive Use2 1,706

Unintentional Shooting2 1,686

 

 

You people are exactly what gives the anti gun crowed a bad name. Emotional responses and not a lot of logical ones. Hence why I posted a simIlar situation where there was no gun involved. The gun is the instrument not the cause. Learn the difference. If you really believe the gun was the cause and not the mental illness, then there’s really no point in having a discussion. 

The gun is the instrument, but what 'you people' won't acknowledge is how much more deadly guns are. 

[clam linguine]

Doctors say stress is the great killer. When I go in the bush, if I don't have my bear spray, I'm stressed. When I'm at home, I'm happy to have bear spray in the closet. A gun would be an even better life extending stress reliever.

[RUPERTKBD]

46 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Guess you ignored the numbers that hippy just posted about all gun incidents. 

 

Home Invasion2 2,083

Defensive Use2 1,706

Unintentional Shooting2 1,686

 

 

You people are exactly what gives the anti gun crowed a bad name. Emotional responses and not a lot of logical ones. Hence why I posted a simIlar situation where there was no gun involved. The gun is the instrument not the cause. Learn the difference. If you really believe the gun was the cause and not the mental illness, then there’s really no point in having a discussion. 

I never said that the gun was the cause. I said that people with mental illness have far too easy access to guns.

 

Can you look at the gun statistics in the US and honestly say there's nothing wrong with the gun laws as they stand? Sandy Hook, Orlando, Las Vegas? Everything's peachy?

[ForsbergTheGreat]

3 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I never said that the gun was the cause. I said that people with mental illness have far too easy access to guns.

 

no you said "Two innocent children are dead and a family ruined, because a mentally unbalanced woman had easy access to a gun"

 

3 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Can you look at the gun statistics in the US and honestly say there's nothing wrong with the gun laws as they stand? Sandy Hook, Orlando, Las Vegas? Everything's peachy?

You've been reading too much vox.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

 

You know you have a lot of strong opinions on the matter but offer no solutions.

 

59 minutes ago, inane said:

The gun is the instrument, but what 'you people' won't acknowledge is how much more deadly guns are. 

Sure they are deadly, so if a knife, so is a van

[inane]

15 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

no you said "Two innocent children are dead and a family ruined, because a mentally unbalanced woman had easy access to a gun"

 

You've been reading too much vox.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

 

You know you have a lot of strong opinions on the matter but offer no solutions.

 

Sure they are deadly, so if a knife, so is a van

Right, you refuse to acknowledge that while anything from a spoon to a gun can be deadly, one is the most deadly. And, like basically anything else, we regulate/restrict things that are most deadly despite the fact other things could be deadly. Why do we do that? 

 

 

[Ryan Strome]

38 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I never said that the gun was the cause. I said that people with mental illness have far too easy access to guns.

 

Can you look at the gun statistics in the US and honestly say there's nothing wrong with the gun laws as they stand? Sandy Hook, Orlando, Las Vegas? Everything's peachy?

Actually this is what you said.

 

As has been stated many times before: A gun in the home is far more likely to kill a family member, than it is an intruder. This is the reality of the gun culture in the US:

 

Then I think @ForsbergTheGreat provided stats that suggest otherwise.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

6 minutes ago, inane said:

Right, you refuse to acknowledge that while anything from a spoon to a gun can be deadly, one is the most deadly. And, like basically anything else, we regulate/restrict things that are most deadly despite the fact other things could be deadly. Why do we do that? 

Sure a gun is more deadly than a spoon,  The US does regulate/restrict firearms, each state has there own restrictions they must follow.

[GrizzlyAdams]

I would really like to know what impact a mandatory firearm safety course would have if taught in school.

 

I don’t mean a course that lasts for an entire school year, but maybe a one day course that teaches young people the proper ways to handle firearms. The Canadian Firearms Safety Course (CFSC) is excellent and teaches things that should be common knowledge such as:

-          Trigger control

-          Muzzle control

-          Proper firearm storage

I can’t tell you how many times I have gone shooting with my friends and I have caught them with their finger on the trigger before they are ready to shoot, or turning to face someone forgetting that they are holding a firearm. 10 times out of 10 these people haven’t done the CFSC.

 

I’m interested to know if there are data to back up the impact this would have on firearm related deaths.

[Alflives]

38 minutes ago, Mr53 said:

I would really like to know what impact a mandatory firearm safety course would have if taught in school.

 

I don’t mean a course that lasts for an entire school year, but maybe a one day course that teaches young people the proper ways to handle firearms. The Canadian Firearms Safety Course (CFSC) is excellent and teaches things that should be common knowledge such as:

-          Trigger control

-          Muzzle control

-          Proper firearm storage

I can’t tell you how many times I have gone shooting with my friends and I have caught them with their finger on the trigger before they are ready to shoot, or turning to face someone forgetting that they are holding a firearm. 10 times out of 10 these people haven’t done the CFSC.

 

I’m interested to know if there are data to back up the impact this would have on firearm related deaths.

Yup, education is a good thing for sure.  If I was living in the States, I would ABSOLUTELY have my “right to carry” permit.  I’d encourage my wife to get one too.  If a whacko with a gun attacks, I bet your chances of surviving said attack are improved if you have a gun, and you’re well trained (educated) to use it.  

[RUPERTKBD]

2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

no you said "Two innocent children are dead and a family ruined, because a mentally unbalanced woman had easy access to a gun"

 

You've been reading too much vox.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

 

You know you have a lot of strong opinions on the matter but offer no solutions.

 

Sure they are deadly, so if a knife, so is a van

I've offered several ideas over several shooting threads. Always met by the obligatory "it won't work" routine. meanwhile, the shootings continue unabated, and the gun advocates continue to act as if they don't have a problem.

[RUPERTKBD]

Re the "repudiating" statistics:

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262

Quote

 

The claim has since become gospel for gun advocates and is frequently touted by the National Rifle Association, pro-gun scholars such as John Lott and conservative politicians. The argument typically goes something like this: Guns are used defensively “over 2 million times every year—five times more frequently than the 430,000 times guns were used to commit crimes.” Or, as Gun Owners of America states, “firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.” Former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum has frequently opined on the benefits of defensive gun use, explaining: “In fact, there are millions of lives that are saved in America every year, or millions of instances like that where gun owners have prevented crimes and stopped things from happening because of having guns at the scene.”

It may sound reassuring, but is utterly false. In fact, gun owners are far more likely to end up like Theodore Wafer or Eusebio Christian, accidentally shooting an innocent person or seeing their weapons harm a family member, than be heroes warding off criminals.

 

 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Re the "repudiating" statistics:

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262

 

No gun means no defence.  Considering the number of attacks with gun, by criminals, it appears the only safe way to guard against gun violence is to carry.  

How would you suggest people protect themselves from a violent attack, if not with their own gun?  

[RUPERTKBD]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/are-more-guns-helpful-in-wal-mart-shooting-armed-shoppers-hinder-police-investigation/ar-AAuqi8U?li=AAggFp5

 

Quote

 

Most shoppers crouched behind checkout counters or bolted toward the back exit. But as a gunman fired inside a Wal-Mart store in a Denver suburb, some patrons took a more defensive approach: They grabbed their own guns.

They were the proverbial "good guys with guns" that gun rights advocates say have the power to stop mass shootings.

But police in Thornton, Colo., said that in this case the well-intentioned gun carriers set the stage for chaos, stalling efforts to capture the suspect in the Wednesday night shooting that killed three people.

None of the armed civilians fired their weapons, and the suspect managed to flee the store.

Police began combing through store security camera footage to identify him and determined whether he had an accomplice.

"Once the building was safe.... we started reviewing that [surveillance video] as quickly as we could," Victor Avila, a spokesman for the Thornton Police Department, told reporters.

But the videos showed several people in the store with their guns drawn. That forced detectives to watch more video, following the armed shoppers throughout the store in an effort to distinguish the good guys from the bad guy, Avila said.

Investigators went "back to ground zero" several times as they struggled to pinpoint the suspect, he said.

 

 

[RUPERTKBD]

3 minutes ago, Alflives said:

No gun means no defence.  Considering the number of attacks with gun, by criminals, it appears the only safe way to guard against gun violence is to carry.  

How would you suggest people protect themselves from a violent attack, if not with their own gun?  

In their homes? With a security system. Far more effective.

[Alflives]

8 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

In their homes? With a security system. Far more effective.

Eventually one needs to venture out, no?  While away from the safety of ones secured, and locked down home, what’s the best method of protection from a perpetrator’s violence?  Take me, for example.  I’m out in me scooter, which makes me appear weak and easy prey to criminals.  If I have a loaded pistol in my pocket (haha) then I shoot the bad guy, no?  Maybe just carrying gives a person a sense of confidence, so the criminal will leave them alone anyway?  Kind of like the predator selects the weak.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

20 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I've offered several ideas over several shooting threads. Always met by the obligatory "it won't work" routine. meanwhile, the shootings continue unabated, and the gun advocates continue to act as if they don't have a problem.

I'm yet to see any, in fact, last time i asked you ignored the question.

 

8 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

In their homes? With a security system. Far more effective.

The post you have posted are completely misleading.  People don't buy guns solely to go out of there way to become hero's.  They are measures people use to protect there family incase something were to ever happen.  I'm less likely going to commit a crime against a home I know likely has firearms.  

 

If someone broke into your home, how would you protect yourself?  Are you solely waiting on the response time of police to arrive to your home, a lot of damage could to your family in that time span.