*** The Official Superduty Morning Coffee Thread ***
#572
11-19-2017, 03:23 PM
#575
11-20-2017, 07:04 AM
Using the key quote from that link: "A civilian, not a police officer, stopped this attack. He did so by grabbing his rifle, an "evil" AR-15 the left wishes to ban, engaging the shooter. He hit him twice and forced him to flee. He then chased the shooter down at nearly 100mph in a car driven by a second civilian until the shooter crashed at which point the shooter committed suicide (to prevent apprehension, obviously.)"
I have the disadvantage of not knowing all the details of this particular mass shooting, so I'm vulnerable to a counterpoint here. Lets look at an alternative scenario to the above excerpt for the sake of debate (notice how I escaped the word "argument"). I'm not looking to ban all guns, so how would that have played out if the AR15 was banned, but the Derringer was not?
For one thing, I doubt our armed hero was packing an AR15 in his jacket, so crucial life-threatening time was lost while the hero had to go through the motions to fetch the gun, prepare it for action, and return to the scene of the active crime. I don't know how a car got involved, but one might ask one harsh question here: If our hero had his Derringer on his person (much easier to "pack"), how many lives could have been saved between the hero's call to action and either killing the offender, or chasing him off? Would the shooter have even had time to get to a car to flee?
If the shooter only had access to weapons that could fire one or two shots before manual reload, would he have even tried this stunt? If so, how many would be missing from the victim list today?
If only the guns I describe are legal to own, from where are the criminals going to steal the heavy artillery?
One more thought.... So many of these tragic events are not committed by career criminals. They take place when somebody having a bad day or anger management issues has easy access to devices capable of horrific carnage.
After so much harsh debate on this topic over the years, it is very difficult to climb out of the all-or-none trenches. I feel there is a middle ground that needs serious consideration, without rubber-banding back to the all-or-none points of debate.
I have the disadvantage of not knowing all the details of this particular mass shooting, so I'm vulnerable to a counterpoint here. Lets look at an alternative scenario to the above excerpt for the sake of debate (notice how I escaped the word "argument"). I'm not looking to ban all guns, so how would that have played out if the AR15 was banned, but the Derringer was not?
For one thing, I doubt our armed hero was packing an AR15 in his jacket, so crucial life-threatening time was lost while the hero had to go through the motions to fetch the gun, prepare it for action, and return to the scene of the active crime. I don't know how a car got involved, but one might ask one harsh question here: If our hero had his Derringer on his person (much easier to "pack"), how many lives could have been saved between the hero's call to action and either killing the offender, or chasing him off? Would the shooter have even had time to get to a car to flee?
If the shooter only had access to weapons that could fire one or two shots before manual reload, would he have even tried this stunt? If so, how many would be missing from the victim list today?
If only the guns I describe are legal to own, from where are the criminals going to steal the heavy artillery?
One more thought.... So many of these tragic events are not committed by career criminals. They take place when somebody having a bad day or anger management issues has easy access to devices capable of horrific carnage.
After so much harsh debate on this topic over the years, it is very difficult to climb out of the all-or-none trenches. I feel there is a middle ground that needs serious consideration, without rubber-banding back to the all-or-none points of debate.
#576
11-20-2017, 07:18 AM
Fleet Owner
#577
11-20-2017, 08:38 AM
Fleet Mechanic
If the shooter only had access to weapons that could fire one or two shots before manual reload, would he have even tried this stunt? If so, how many would be missing from the victim list today?
If only the guns I describe are legal to own, from where are the criminals going to steal the heavy artillery?
If only the guns I describe are legal to own, from where are the criminals going to steal the heavy artillery?
1 I would guess what is already out in the world would last quite some time
2 If they decide to round them up to be destroyed people will not turn them in
3 They will come in from other countries
4 stolen or lost from police and military
5 modifying whatever is legal to be what someone wants
6 built from scratch
Anyway my truck rolled over 280,000 on the way into work this morning.
#578
11-20-2017, 10:12 AM
#580
11-20-2017, 10:41 AM
Postmaster
Using the key quote from that link: "A civilian, not a police officer, stopped this attack. He did so by grabbing his rifle, an "evil" AR-15 the left wishes to ban, engaging the shooter. He hit him twice and forced him to flee. He then chased the shooter down at nearly 100mph in a car driven by a second civilian until the shooter crashed at which point the shooter committed suicide (to prevent apprehension, obviously.)"
I have the disadvantage of not knowing all the details of this particular mass shooting, so I'm vulnerable to a counterpoint here. Lets look at an alternative scenario to the above excerpt for the sake of debate (notice how I escaped the word "argument"). I'm not looking to ban all guns, so how would that have played out if the AR15 was banned, but the Derringer was not?
For one thing, I doubt our armed hero was packing an AR15 in his jacket, so crucial life-threatening time was lost while the hero had to go through the motions to fetch the gun, prepare it for action, and return to the scene of the active crime. I don't know how a car got involved, but one might ask one harsh question here: If our hero had his Derringer on his person (much easier to "pack"), how many lives could have been saved between the hero's call to action and either killing the offender, or chasing him off? Would the shooter have even had time to get to a car to flee?
If the shooter only had access to weapons that could fire one or two shots before manual reload, would he have even tried this stunt? If so, how many would be missing from the victim list today?
If only the guns I describe are legal to own, from where are the criminals going to steal the heavy artillery?
One more thought.... So many of these tragic events are not committed by career criminals. They take place when somebody having a bad day or anger management issues has easy access to devices capable of horrific carnage.
After so much harsh debate on this topic over the years, it is very difficult to climb out of the all-or-none trenches. I feel there is a middle ground that needs serious consideration, without rubber-banding back to the all-or-none points of debate.
I have the disadvantage of not knowing all the details of this particular mass shooting, so I'm vulnerable to a counterpoint here. Lets look at an alternative scenario to the above excerpt for the sake of debate (notice how I escaped the word "argument"). I'm not looking to ban all guns, so how would that have played out if the AR15 was banned, but the Derringer was not?
For one thing, I doubt our armed hero was packing an AR15 in his jacket, so crucial life-threatening time was lost while the hero had to go through the motions to fetch the gun, prepare it for action, and return to the scene of the active crime. I don't know how a car got involved, but one might ask one harsh question here: If our hero had his Derringer on his person (much easier to "pack"), how many lives could have been saved between the hero's call to action and either killing the offender, or chasing him off? Would the shooter have even had time to get to a car to flee?
If the shooter only had access to weapons that could fire one or two shots before manual reload, would he have even tried this stunt? If so, how many would be missing from the victim list today?
If only the guns I describe are legal to own, from where are the criminals going to steal the heavy artillery?
One more thought.... So many of these tragic events are not committed by career criminals. They take place when somebody having a bad day or anger management issues has easy access to devices capable of horrific carnage.
After so much harsh debate on this topic over the years, it is very difficult to climb out of the all-or-none trenches. I feel there is a middle ground that needs serious consideration, without rubber-banding back to the all-or-none points of debate.
The good Samaritan, was actually at home in his house when his daughter came in and said somebody was shooting at the church. So whether it was a Derringer or the evil A.R. 15 he still had to go get it. However, this response was far quicker than that of responding Law Enforcement. What I find interesting is when somebody shoots up a church or school everybody wants to ban firearms. However, when somebody uses pressure cookers to blow up a race in Boston nobody's screaming ban pressure cookers. When somebody drives through a crowd in New York City nobody wants to ban automobiles. When somebody goes through a crowd of people with a knife randomly stabbing them again nobody wants to ban knives. When the Military failed to report criminal violations to it's Civilian counterparts you don't see the Media and Liberals DEMANDING those responsible be held accountable...We blame the gun. Yet, these same individuals call an individual (LEO) with a gun when their families are threatened. And these individuals (LEO) have Occasionally been found guilty of committing crimes with their firearms...yet no one blames the LEO's firearm they blame the officer!
The fact of the matter is people want the illusion that their families are safe in their daily lives. And it makes them feel warm and cozy inside and it creates this illusion that banning in this case a gun they are somehow going to be safer from evil. The reality is evil exists, it will find a way to do it's evil deeds. If you could somehow ban and remove firearms, evil will simply use a different catalyst to obtain its objectives. We are blessed to be in a country where we don't see the military walking around with automatic weapons to keep our community safe, remember days after 9/11? However, this also creates an illusion we are somehow safer than we really are. You go to Europe, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, anywhere in the middle east and there are arm guards walking the streets, walking through the airports etc, prepared for evil in all its forms.
rant over...
#581
11-20-2017, 10:47 AM
Fleet Owner
#582
11-20-2017, 10:58 AM
Fleet Owner
When there is a bombing the criminal/attacker is blamed.
When a vehicle is used, the criminal/attacker is blamed.
When there is a shooting, the gun is blamed.
Figure that one out...
I am gaining weight now that I am out of the military. That is not McDonald's fault, it is not my silverware's fault, it is my fault.
When I heard about the recent shooting and that he had been discharged from the USAF and the records had not been forwarded on, I told my wife that "someone f-ed up big time and they should be held responsible to a point".
Whenever I run into someone that is willing to discuss how bad we as a nation have it, I talk with them for a few moments. I listen to their thoughts and concerns, then I begin to let them know my thoughts and concerns. I have even offered to pay for a 2 day trip to Afghanistan, Pakistan or other various 3rd world type countries that I have seen in person for them. You know what they always say, NO WAY! I will come back with something along the lines of yes, we may have some areas in our nation that need attention and improvement, but it is not nearly as bad as you think, or as bad as it could be.
A lot of people don't know how good we have it here and that is a problem. They just want to **** and moan about a topic and not listen to the other side because they don't agree with it. There is a going to be a critical point of failure within our culture in the future, and I hope that is not in my lifetime. If it is, I will have my weapons locked and ready to defend my family and way of life.
Maybe I am wrong, maybe everyone will get along and they will stop running cars into crowds and screaming at each other even before listening to the other sides points. We always have more to learn, whether we agree or disagree with the topic at hand.
When a vehicle is used, the criminal/attacker is blamed.
When there is a shooting, the gun is blamed.
Figure that one out...
I am gaining weight now that I am out of the military. That is not McDonald's fault, it is not my silverware's fault, it is my fault.
When I heard about the recent shooting and that he had been discharged from the USAF and the records had not been forwarded on, I told my wife that "someone f-ed up big time and they should be held responsible to a point".
Whenever I run into someone that is willing to discuss how bad we as a nation have it, I talk with them for a few moments. I listen to their thoughts and concerns, then I begin to let them know my thoughts and concerns. I have even offered to pay for a 2 day trip to Afghanistan, Pakistan or other various 3rd world type countries that I have seen in person for them. You know what they always say, NO WAY! I will come back with something along the lines of yes, we may have some areas in our nation that need attention and improvement, but it is not nearly as bad as you think, or as bad as it could be.
A lot of people don't know how good we have it here and that is a problem. They just want to **** and moan about a topic and not listen to the other side because they don't agree with it. There is a going to be a critical point of failure within our culture in the future, and I hope that is not in my lifetime. If it is, I will have my weapons locked and ready to defend my family and way of life.
Maybe I am wrong, maybe everyone will get along and they will stop running cars into crowds and screaming at each other even before listening to the other sides points. We always have more to learn, whether we agree or disagree with the topic at hand.
#584
11-20-2017, 12:19 PM
Give them an inch, they want a mile. "If" and that is a big if, we as a nation did say no more mechanized loading weapons, how long do you think it would be before all firearms would be illegal?
We are trying to stay away from the all or none mindset, but that is how it would play out.
We are trying to stay away from the all or none mindset, but that is how it would play out.
Even if this were to come to pass, what are the odds 100 million gun owners will allow their representative to vote to take what's left? We can't say they will come to get the rest without more evidence than what we have now. With total respect to you as my friend here, one could make the case that the notion they'd come after the rest is possibly a rationalization to prevent any change at all.
They do now. Drugs come in from other countries. We're back to how bad the criminal wants it, and how much he/she is willing to pay on the black market.
We have that now... but how many mass shootings took place with those weapons?
