BF2S Forums Official Mass Shooting & Suicide Bomber thread

Extra Medium wrote:

• A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
• A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire an
d apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
• A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
• A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
• A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
• A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
• A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
• At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.

Read more at: http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/h … efense-in/


You don't hear about these things because 30 people don't die.

Having more of them isn't a solution either.

The more weapons you integrate into society, the more opportunities you create for shootings to occur. The last thing you want is to have two people having a heated argument with weapons at hand, because fisticuffs is going to take a pretty big step up. A cop in Chicago summed it up pretty well about the gang wars going on there. Spats that were once sorted with fists are now being handled with bullets. The more common something becomes, the less people are going to pause and think before doing it.

If someone wants a weapon for home defence, it should be a pistol/revolver/shotgun at most and your ammunition limited. Unless you're the world's most atrocious shot, in which case you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun, you don't need enough bullets to fight off the Legion of Doom. If you want a rifle for hunting or competition shooting, it should be kept at a secured and guarded location with exception of places out in the middle of nowhere (even then, limits should be imposed on exactly what type of weapon you can own). Your ammunition should be limited, you should have to sign that weapon in and out and if you appear to be intoxicated or edgy, the guards should be allowed to refuse access. They do this in military facilities, I don't see why it can't be applied to a civilian environment. Unless you're expecting the Terminator to show up, having something that can rapid fire rounds over a few hundred yards in your house makes little sense.

M.O.A.B wrote:

If someone wants a weapon for home defence, it should be a pistol/revolver/shotgun at most and your ammunition limited. Unless you're the world's most atrocious shot, in which case you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun, you don't need enough bullets to fight off the Legion of Doom. If you want a rifle for hunting or competition shooting, it should be kept at a secured and guarded location with exception of places out in the middle of nowhere (even then, limits should be imposed on exactly what type of weapon you can own). Your ammunition should be limited, you should have to sign that weapon in and out and if you appear to be intoxicated or edgy, the guards should be allowed to refuse access. They do this in military facilities, I don't see why it can't be applied to a civilian environment. Unless you're expecting the Terminator to show up, having something that can rapid fire rounds over a few hundred yards in your house makes little sense.

Okay, by that same logic, all video games depicting violence and death should be banned. No good can come from them, and they might do harm.

Also, ban all violent television and movies, especially anything by Quentin Tarantino.

Also, ban alcohol and tobacco, as there is no legitimate useful purpose for either item, and plenty of potential for harm from either.

Also, ban caffeinated drinks, like soda, tea, coffee, or espresso.  Caffeine is a central nervous system stimulant, with an addictive potential. Small quantities of caffeine, and other stimulants, can trigger violent reactions in certain people with particular mental illnesses.

Also ban everything that could be toxic if ingested, or flammable.  All motor oils, fuels, grease, etc - too dangerous.  Everyone walks everywhere from now on.

Finally, ban personal ownership of aftermarket video cards, as the processing power of such GPUs is only useful to play violent video games, crack encryption on copyrighted materials, do nuclear weapons research, and break passwords.  Any legitimate personal entertainment can be accomplished on closed-environment systems, like DVD players, X-Box, and iPads. You should have to have a documented scientific or professional clearance to possess, program, or operate such high-end computing power. They do this in military facilities, I don't see why it can't be applied to a civilian environment.

I'm being sarcastic, of course.
It's all fun and games, as long as they're taking away access to things that you don't use anyways.  Looks a little different when they start going after things you use, even if you don't really need them.

It doesn't matter if they use matches, guns, knives, explosives, fists, rape, or anything else - crazy broken people will do crazy broken things. You take away items from innocent people that weren't going to do anything wrong anyways, you don't solve anything.

You want to get at the root of the issue, you need to find and fix the crazy broken people.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2012-12-17 12:18:19)

M.O.A.B wrote:

If someone wants a weapon for home defence, it should be a pistol/revolver/shotgun at most and your ammunition limited. Unless you're the world's most atrocious shot, in which case you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun, you don't need enough bullets to fight off the Legion of Doom. If you want a rifle for hunting or competition shooting, it should be kept at a secured and guarded location with exception of places out in the middle of nowhere (even then, limits should be imposed on exactly what type of weapon you can own). Your ammunition should be limited, you should have to sign that weapon in and out and if you appear to be intoxicated or edgy, the guards should be allowed to refuse access. They do this in military facilities, I don't see why it can't be applied to a civilian environment. Unless you're expecting the Terminator to show up, having something that can rapid fire rounds over a few hundred yards in your house makes little sense.

1) What, we should secure our rifles but not any other gun?
2) Ammunition and types of guns limited how? And limited to what?
3) Are you suggesting strip searches and metal detectors for shopping malls? And what if you're one of those sociopaths who doesn't appear intoxicated or edgy? Good luck implementing gatehouses and barbed wire fences at average American malls.
4) Rapid fire rounds, wat?

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-a … 93571.html

Clackamas mall shooter faced man with concealed weapon
by Mike Benner, KGW Staff
Posted on December 17, 2012 at 5:18 AM
Updated today at 11:52 AM

PORTLAND -- Nick Meli is emotionally drained.  The 22-year-old was at Clackamas Town Center with a friend and her baby when a masked man opened fire.

"I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?,'" he said.

The friend and baby hit the floor.  Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.

"He was working on his rifle," said Meli.  "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."

The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.

Meli took cover inside a nearby store.  He never pulled the trigger.  He stands by that decision.

"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

The gunman was dead, but not before taking two innocent lives with him and taking the innocence of everyone else.

"I don't ever want to see anyone that way ever," said Meli.  "It just bothers me."

Last edited by west-phoenix-az (2012-12-17 12:47:26)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

NEWTOWN, Conn. — He spoke for a nation in sorrow, but the slaughter of all those little boys and girls left President Barack Obama, like so many others, reaching for words. Alone on a stage after what he described to Gov. Dannel Malloy as the most difficult day of his presidency, the commander in chief was a parent in grief.

So what are parents in the middle east? Chopped liver?

Well, there are any number of bad jokes in response to that...

It's politics as usual.  The comments of the moment are only said with the moment in mind.  There is no perspective, there is no context, there is only the moment. Successful politicians are great at sucking their audiences into that little reality distortion bubble.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The mere sight of a concealed carry shooter will may cause a mass-shooter to commit suicide!

It may. How many of these mass shooters kill themselves? They don't want to be taken alive. They don't want to risk being shot and injured to the point were they can't take themselves out.

rdx-fx wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The mere sight of a concealed carry shooter will cause a mass-shooter to commit suicide!

My biggest fear about pulling a gun in a situation like that, is getting mowed down by the first trigger-happy cop that wanders by.

Yeah, makes sense.  Or any other person mistaking guy with gun A for guy with gun B.  Or guy C with gun for guy A, etc.  Having concealed carry could prove effective in stopping the scope of destruction, or it could lead to more bad news.  I think it's shortsighted to tout concealed carry as a possible deterrent to mass shootings.

rdx-fx wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

If someone wants a weapon for home defence, it should be a pistol/revolver/shotgun at most and your ammunition limited. Unless you're the world's most atrocious shot, in which case you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun, you don't need enough bullets to fight off the Legion of Doom. If you want a rifle for hunting or competition shooting, it should be kept at a secured and guarded location with exception of places out in the middle of nowhere (even then, limits should be imposed on exactly what type of weapon you can own). Your ammunition should be limited, you should have to sign that weapon in and out and if you appear to be intoxicated or edgy, the guards should be allowed to refuse access. They do this in military facilities, I don't see why it can't be applied to a civilian environment. Unless you're expecting the Terminator to show up, having something that can rapid fire rounds over a few hundred yards in your house makes little sense.

Okay, by that same logic, all video games depicting violence and death should be banned. No good can come from them, and they might do harm.

Also, ban all violent television and movies, especially anything by Quentin Tarantino.

Also, ban alcohol and tobacco, as there is no legitimate useful purpose for either item, and plenty of potential for harm from either.

Also, ban caffeinated drinks, like soda, tea, coffee, or espresso.  Caffeine is a central nervous system stimulant, with an addictive potential. Small quantities of caffeine, and other stimulants, can trigger violent reactions in certain people with particular mental illnesses.

Also ban everything that could be toxic if ingested, or flammable.  All motor oils, fuels, grease, etc - too dangerous.  Everyone walks everywhere from now on.

Finally, ban personal ownership of aftermarket video cards, as the processing power of such GPUs is only useful to play violent video games, crack encryption on copyrighted materials, do nuclear weapons research, and break passwords.  Any legitimate personal entertainment can be accomplished on closed-environment systems, like DVD players, X-Box, and iPads. You should have to have a documented scientific or professional clearance to possess, program, or operate such high-end computing power. They do this in military facilities, I don't see why it can't be applied to a civilian environment.

I'm being sarcastic, of course.
It's all fun and games, as long as they're taking away access to things that you don't use anyways.  Looks a little different when they start going after things you use, even if you don't really need them.

It doesn't matter if they use matches, guns, knives, explosives, fists, rape, or anything else - crazy broken people will do crazy broken things. You take away items from innocent people that weren't going to do anything wrong anyways, you don't solve anything.

You want to get at the root of the issue, you need to find and fix the crazy broken people.

I'd absolutely agree that people with mentality instability should be given greater help or identified sooner, I just feel more safeguards should be in place so that if someone has legitimate ownership and intent for a weapon that really serves no purpose for home defence, it should be kept somewhere where it is unlikely to be stolen by anyone short of the Gruber brothers, a secured lock-up at a firing range or a hunting club or whatever. Is it going to stop every attack? No. But if you reduce the number of powerful weapons easily available, whether in someone's home or a store, it should make it harder for people like Lanza to acquire them.

There needs to be greater restriction on how easily these weapons are sold, along with ammo. I mean come on, buying ammo off a shelf like popcorn is ridiculous.

Guns aren't the only way to kill people, but they're an easier way than most. Unfortunately, its got to the point now where there are so many guns in circulation that it's almost impossible to police them. More criminals and whackos get the guns, more legits feel the need to arm themselves, more guns enter the system. Its a fear based system, the same reason why chavs here only try things in a group, own dogs bred for fighting and carry knives. They're scared of attack and want an ace up their sleeve. This isn't how people should live.

You will have people with the training and experience to handle situations like these. Not guaranteed success of course, but the majority of people who do carry a weapon for self-defence are unlikely to use it calmly. Look at most cops. How many rounds do cops fire that actually strike the intended target?

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2012-12-17 14:14:24)

M.O.A.B wrote:

If someone wants a weapon for home defence, it should be a pistol/revolver/shotgun at most

M.O.A.B. wrote:

Unless you're expecting the Terminator to show up, having something that can rapid fire rounds over a few hundred yards in your house makes little sense.

Wat

Pistols and shotguns can't be shot at rapid fire, and the bullets won't travel a few hundred yards?

That'll be your little secret.

Last edited by 1stSFOD-Delta (2012-12-17 15:41:29)

What ever makes people feel safe.

Lets bring back the AWB.

The good old days of Columbine and the LA bank shootout.

It was a good run.

Just like many things, concealed carry is a two edged sword.

Great for the people with good intentions to protect them from those who do not.

Not so great when it is the other way around.

Like many discussions there is no simple solution.

Unless you live in a rural place or on a farm you don't need concealed carry.

Unless he fights with his hands, eh?