Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on January 16, 2013, 07:47:27 AM
-
This guy is such an idiot.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/ed-schultz-makes-bold-claim-that-u-s-has-never-had-a-civilian-stop-a-shooting/
-
Isn't part of the argument against high cap mags is it will give ppl a chance to stop the person when their reloading?
If this moron truly believes that civilians don't stop shootings he needs to rethink his proposed gun control strategies.
The utter nonsense of this and the undoubted parrots that will repeat it is idiotic.
The day that the sandy hook shooting took place there was a shooting in San Antonio Texas where a guy shot his girlfriend in a restaurant and when ppl started fleeing he followed them to try and kill others. They fled into a movie theatre which was full when he got in there he was taken down by an female off duty police officer OTHERWISE KNOWN AS A CIVILIAN!!!
I'm betting many ppl haven't heard anything about the incident I mentioned, probably bc it goes against the main stream agenda
-
Here's just a few out of hundreds of documented incidents where shooters were stopped by armed civilians:
—Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
—Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)
—Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
—Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
—Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
—Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
—Muskegon, Michigan: From the Aug. 23, 1995, issue of the Muskegon Chronicle: “Plans to slay everyone in the Muskegon, Michigan, store and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their ‘gnawing hunger for crack cocaine’ fell apart for a band of would-be killers after one of their victims fought back. Store owner Clare Cooper was returning behind the counter after showing three of the four conspirators some jewelry, when one of the group pulled out a gun and shot him four times in the back. Stumbling for the safety of his bullet-proof glass-encased counter, Cooper managed to grab his shotgun and fire as the suspects fled.”
—Colorado Springs, Colo.: On Dec. 9, 2007, gunman Mathew Murray, 24, launched an armed attack against the parishioners of the New Life Church that ultimately left two innocent victims dead. But the toll could have been much higher, were it not for the heroic actions of former police officer Jeanne Assam from Minnesota. In an interview she said she very nearly decided not to go to church that morning but because she saw a headline on her computer indicating that two young people were murdered and a training center for Christian missionaries about 70 miles away in the Denver suburb of Arvada, she changed her mind. Murray shot a total of five people before an armed Assam shot and killed him. There were about 7,000 people at the church at the time of the attack.
-
Oh and this:
http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen
-
Here's just a few out of hundreds of documented incidents where shooters were stopped by armed civilians:
—Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
—Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)
—Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
—Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
—Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
—Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
—Muskegon, Michigan: From the Aug. 23, 1995, issue of the Muskegon Chronicle: “Plans to slay everyone in the Muskegon, Michigan, store and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their ‘gnawing hunger for crack cocaine’ fell apart for a band of would-be killers after one of their victims fought back. Store owner Clare Cooper was returning behind the counter after showing three of the four conspirators some jewelry, when one of the group pulled out a gun and shot him four times in the back. Stumbling for the safety of his bullet-proof glass-encased counter, Cooper managed to grab his shotgun and fire as the suspects fled.”
—Colorado Springs, Colo.: On Dec. 9, 2007, gunman Mathew Murray, 24, launched an armed attack against the parishioners of the New Life Church that ultimately left two innocent victims dead. But the toll could have been much higher, were it not for the heroic actions of former police officer Jeanne Assam from Minnesota. In an interview she said she very nearly decided not to go to church that morning but because she saw a headline on her computer indicating that two young people were murdered and a training center for Christian missionaries about 70 miles away in the Denver suburb of Arvada, she changed her mind. Murray shot a total of five people before an armed Assam shot and killed him. There were about 7,000 people at the church at the time of the attack.
Got a link to this?
-
Oh and this:
http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen
I read the story
it's not at all clear that the shooter was stopped by the "armed citizen" in any way at all
-
I read the story
it's not at all clear that the shooter was stopped by the "armed citizen" in any way at all
Straw, clearly it does and has happened. Schultz is wrong on that. You don't deny that do you?
-
Got a link to this?
Google the stories, they aren't difficult to find.
There's also this very interesting Secret Service Report in 2010 on school shootings:
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf
Despite prompt law enforcement responses, most shooting incidents were
stopped by means other than law enforcement intervention.
...
Most school-based attacks were stopped through intervention by school
administrators, educators and students-or by the attacker stopping on his own. In
about one-third of the incidents, the attacker was apprehended by or surrendered to
administrators, faculty, or school staff (27 percent, n=10) or to students (5 percent,
n=2).
...
Just over one-quarter of the incidents were stopped through law enforcement
intervention (27 percent, n=10). Law enforcement personnel discharged weapons in
only three of the incidents of targeted school violence studied (8 percent, n=3).
-
Why are police perfectly capable of using their firearms effectively but not civilians? I don't understand the logic?
Locally, the Sheriff gives CCW classes. These are citizens being trained by the Police.
???
-
Why are police perfectly capable of using their firearms effectively but not civilians? I don't understand the logic?
Locally, the Sheriff gives CCW classes. These are citizens being trained by the Police.
???
The police aren't always perfectly effective at using their firearms, there have been numerous accounts of bystanders being hit by police officers firing their weapons. There was one a few months back where I think 9 people were injured by police in a shootout (could be fuzzy on the exact number, maybe it was 5).
-
The police aren't always perfectly effective at using their firearms, there have been numerous accounts of bystanders being hit by police officers firing their weapons. There was one a few months back where I think 9 people were injured by police in a shootout (could be fuzzy on the exact number, maybe it was 5).
Yeah, that's my point.
These fools are arguing that for whatever reason, Police (humans) are more capable than Civilians (humans).
I'm not understanding why? In a lot of cases, private citizens are more concerned with training and practice than the police.
-
I read the story
it's not at all clear that the shooter was stopped by the "armed citizen" in any way at all
LMFAO part of your argument for magazine limits are that it makes it easier for citizens to take them down when they are reloading.
But you wouldnt want those citizens to have guns?
-
LMFAO part of your argument for magazine limits are that it makes it easier for citizens to take them down when they are reloading.
But you wouldnt want those citizens to have guns?
when did I say I didn't want citizens to have guns
why do you keep saying shit that I never said ?
-
when did I say I didn't want citizens to have guns
why do you keep saying shit that I never said ?
you said multiple times that you were ok with banning all guns but muskets...
-
you said multiple times that you were ok with banning all guns but muskets...
I said that in a conversation about the 2nd amendment and what should be allowed (since clearly we already have limitations)
I'm not for banning all guns but guess what.....if we banned everything except muskets you'd still be able to have GUNS
so still no one (not even me) is talking about banning guns
btw - if a musket is not enough to protect your family I'd suggest you stock up on hammers
according to some posters on this board they are more deadly than rifles
-
I said that in a conversation about the 2nd amendment and what should be allowed (since clearly we already have limitations)
I'm not for banning all guns but guess what.....if we banned everything except muskets you'd still be able to have GUNS
so still no one (not even me) is talking about banning guns
btw - if a musket is not enough to protect your family I'd suggest you stock up on hammers
according to some posters on this board they are more deadly than rifles
LOL plenty of ppl are talking about banning guns moron even if the majority are talking about banning only certain types of guns.
And yes brain child many ppl are talking about banning all guns.
The thread youre referring to wasnt about them being deadlier moron, it was about how more ppl are killed with them.
-
LOL plenty of ppl are talking about banning guns moron even if the majority are talking about banning only certain types of guns.
And yes brain child many ppl are talking about banning all guns.
The thread youre referring to wasnt about them being deadlier moron, it was about how more ppl are killed with them.
so what
I'm not talking about banning all guns and there is zero popular support for it either so why it that the ONLY thing you guy focus on
why do you constantly take something and conflate it into a total ban
btw "brainchild" I should have known sarcasm would be lost on someone with such limited intelligence
-
so what
I'm not talking about banning all guns and there is zero popular support for it either so why it that the ONLY thing you guy focus on
why do you constantly take something and conflate it into a total ban
btw "brainchild" I should have known sarcasm would be lost on someone with such limited intelligence
he is trying to totally ban "assault weapons"!!!!
hahaha you made it perfectly clear that the stance you took wasnt being sarcastic dumb ass
-
he is trying to totally ban "assault weapons"!!!!
hahaha you made it perfectly clear that the stance you took wasnt being sarcastic dumb ass
I'm fine if they can get an AWB
and news flash, just because you couldn't figure out I was being sarcastic about "stocking up on hammers" doesn't mean others couldn't figure it out
You need to learn that there are actually a lot of people in this world who are a LOT smarter than you and just because you can't figure out something doesn't mean that others can't figure it out
-
I'm fine if they can get an AWB
and news flash, just because you couldn't figure out I was being sarcastic about "stocking up on hammers" doesn't mean others couldn't figure it out
You need to learn that there are actually a lot of people in this world who are a LOT smarter than you and just because you can't figure out something doesn't mean that others can't figure it out
LMFAO ahh thats the comment you meant, oh I understood your sarcasm on that its just that the point you were making with it wasnt correct.
Nobody ever said that hammers are more deadly than rifles only that they kill more ppl.
-
LMFAO ahh thats the comment you meant, oh I understood your sarcasm on that its just that the point you were making with it wasnt correct.
Nobody ever said that hammers are more deadly than rifles only that they kill more ppl.
the entire hammer argument was fucking stupid from the beginning (and put forth by a stupid person)
hence the sarcasm
-
I said that in a conversation about the 2nd amendment and what should be allowed (since clearly we already have limitations)
I'm not for banning all guns but guess what.....if we banned everything except muskets you'd still be able to have GUNS
so still no one (not even me) is talking about banning guns
btw - if a musket is not enough to protect your family I'd suggest you stock up on hammers
according to some posters on this board they are more deadly than rifles
Come on man... are you kidding? You think we should be limited to muskets? Even as a defense, it's an obsurd statement to make.
How would this work if say 3 people invade a home. One guy gets shot and the home owner says, "time out, give me a minute to reload" ::)
and yes, you're talking about banning guns if all you think we should have are muskets lol...
-
Come on man... are you kidding? You think we should be limited to muskets? Even as a defense, it's an obsurd statement to make.
How would this work if say 3 people invade a home. One guy gets shot and the home owner says, "time out, give me a minute to reload" ::)
and yes, you're talking about banning guns if all you think we should have are muskets lol...
not really, but I was making a point (on the thread about the 2nd amendment) about what was actually available to an individual at the time it was written
maybe we should only allow people to have guns in they are part of a "well regulated militia"
I'm a bit tired of any form of restriction/regulation/enforcement being conflated to "they want to ban all guns"
It's getting old
-
not really, but I was making a point (on the thread about the 2nd amendment) about what was actually available to an individual at the time it was written
maybe we should only allow people to have guns in they are part of a "well regulated militia"
I'm a bit tired of any form of restriction/regulation/enforcement being conflated to "they want to ban all guns"
It's getting old
one could also argue that as that was all the govt had at the time as well, thats what the framers meant.
If you take that stance then citizens should be allowed to have the same guns as the govt.
-
not really, but I was making a point (on the thread about the 2nd amendment) about what was actually available to an individual at the time it was written
maybe we should only allow people to have guns in they are part of a "well regulated militia"
I'm a bit tired of any form of restriction/regulation/enforcement being conflated to "they want to ban all guns"
It's getting old
Its almost as tiring as when a shooting happens and ppl think that more gun laws or banning types of guns will help stop or limit them.
-
not really, but I was making a point (on the thread about the 2nd amendment) about what was actually available to an individual at the time it was written
maybe we should only allow people to have guns in they are part of a "well regulated militia"
I'm a bit tired of any form of restriction/regulation/enforcement being conflated to "they want to ban all guns"
It's getting old
Do you really think when the 2nd Amendment was written that they wrote it to only intend firearms of the time? Advancement of firearms was actively going on at that time.
And it's not hard to find major opinions wanting to outright ban guns. It's also not hard to see a progression of laws as we go along restricting them more and more. You can't make statements like this based on what's happening right now. You have to guage the timeline on this and the direction it's going. Banned completely 25 years from now is banned now to me. The fight to keep our gun rights is a good one and if we were not putting up this fight, I promise you, the no guns allowed crowd would win out real fast.
-
Do you really think when the 2nd Amendment was written that they wrote it to only intend firearms of the time? Advancement of firearms was actively going on at that time.
And it's not hard to find major opinions wanting to outright ban guns. It's also not hard to see a progression of laws as we go along restricting them more and more. You can't make statements like this based on what's happening right now. You have to guage the timeline on this and the direction it's going. Banned completely 25 years from now is banned now to me. The fight to keep our gun rights is a good one and if we were not putting up this fight, I promise you, the no guns allowed crowd would win out real fast.
I have no info that they intended anything other than what was available at the time
I don't know what "major opinions" you're referring to but I've never said I'm in a favor of an outright ban on guns nor does it have any public support
It seems like the right can't look at any form of legislation without equating it with an outright ban
I personally have no time or patience for that kind of nonsense
If other what to spend their time conflating some legislation to "total ban" that's their business
-
I personally have no time or patience for that kind of nonsense
Oh, I'm sorry your highness.... I didn't mean to bug you with this.
-
Oh, I'm sorry your highness.... I didn't mean to bug you with this.
you're not personally bugging me but it's been the same nonsense over and over again for the last month
any talk of doing anything = they want to ban all guns
-
you're not personally bugging me but it's been the same nonsense over and over again for the last month
any talk of doing anything = they want to ban all guns
You at least have to understand why they are doing this. If you look at the timeline of events in both activism and legislation, it clearly shows a progression toward all out gun bans at some point. If people don't fight against it now, what's the point? You don't fight it after it happens, you fight it before it happens. You can't be mad at people for doing that. especially in an era where our government is happy to make major changes in the blink of an eye and that's true, they do.
-
You at least have to understand why they are doing this. If you look at the timeline of events in both activism and legislation, it clearly shows a progression toward all out gun bans at some point. If people don't fight against it now, what's the point? You don't fight it after it happens, you fight it before it happens. You can't be mad at people for doing that. especially in an era where our government is happy to make major changes in the blink of an eye and that's true, they do.
he see's it hugo he just simply doesnt care, youre talking to a person that doesnt see an issue with an all out ban.
-
he see's it hugo he just simply doesnt care, youre talking to a person that doesnt see an issue with an all out ban.
I honestly think you're right. I personally know people that just don't believe it matters. I find it extremely disappointing/dangerous...
"They'll still have the right to hunt........."
::)
-
I honestly think you're right. I personally know people that just don't believe it matters. I find it extremely disappointing/dangerous...
"They'll still have the right to hunt........."
::)
you remember that idiotic comment whatever the girl's name is on CNN pierce something made along the lines of the govt has nukes so it basically negates the argument that we need assault rifles to protect ourselves from tyrannical govt since we couldnt if we tried?
LOL straw made basically the same argument except without the nukes comment.
He simply doesnt care if we have guns or not.
-
You at least have to understand why they are doing this. If you look at the timeline of events in both activism and legislation, it clearly shows a progression toward all out gun bans at some point. If people don't fight against it now, what's the point? You don't fight it after it happens, you fight it before it happens. You can't be mad at people for doing that. especially in an era where our government is happy to make major changes in the blink of an eye and that's true, they do.
I don't see that at all
-
I don't see that at all
of course you don't
-
I don't see that at all
That is because you are a mental case. .
-
I don't see that at all
so in youre mind there is no reason at all to oppose any form of gun legislation?
-
so in youre mind there is no reason at all to oppose any form of gun legislation?
wtf is wrong with your brain
how did you arrive at that conclusion?
-
of course you don't
feel free to connect the dots for me
-
Assault rifles killed less than 320 people in a nation of 312,000,000 (many of which were probably gang related).
-
Assault rifles killed less than 320 people in a nation of 312,000,000 (many of which were probably gang related).
yep
I still don't agree with Hugo's point of view that
If you look at the timeline of events in both activism and legislation, it clearly shows a progression toward all out gun bans at some point
I don't see the path/progression to an all out gun ban
-
yep
I still don't agree with Hugo's point of view that
I don't see the path/progression to an all out gun ban
Why are they pushing so hard to ban assault weapons if that obviously won't achieve anything?
-
In Straws world, only amendments he disagrees with are subject to the technological, moral and historical circumstances which surrounded the creation of the Constitution.
If Straws sanctimonious idiocy were applied to the constitution as a whole, the result would be quite remarkable. Women would not be able to vote, blacks would still be slaves, etc.
I suppose Police Officers would also have to wear muskets attached to their uniforms.
::)
Brilliant Liberal Utopia.
The assault weapons ban is a transparent attempt to destroy the second amendment-- nothing more, nothing less. Newton will succeed where Fast and Furious failed. This is only the beginning.