[ToTheLeft]

Yes, a big long list of people who have died (all due respect, their lives should not have ended that way) ... doesn't mean adding more guns will solve ANYTHING. Proving that people die from shootings all the time should HURT your point more than it HELPS it.

[ToTheLeft]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/ ... yguns.html

I think this story proves why ordinary citizens should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. Suppose the manager didn't have a gun...would the shooter have backed out of the doorway or continued firing, potentially hitting and killing someone (the shooter was a bad shot...which is why I say potentially).

hmm, the man that had his gun out FIRST, fired several times and didn't hit a thing... hmm...
could it be that his adrenaline was going crazy and he had no fine motor control?

second, the two guys that pulled their guns second A. didn't get shot in the head INSTANTLY B. ended the situation without firing a shot... hmmm....

could it be the Sharky knows what hes talking about?

No, honestly you don't, and you are ridiculously arrogant. It's really frustrating.

[SuperJon]

You could argue that the stuff at Tech wouldn't have happened if there were more restrictions and psych evaluations before you were allowed to buy guns.

You could argue that if everyone at Tech had concealed weapons they would've stopped it sooner, but could also say that more people could've been caught in the cross fire.

To act like one side or the other is completely right is completely asinine and idiotic. Both sides make clear, legit points and neither one is fully right.

[ToTheLeft]

You could argue that the stuff at Tech wouldn't have happened if there were more restrictions and psych evaluations before you were allowed to buy guns.

You could argue that if everyone at Tech had concealed weapons they would've stopped it sooner, but could also say that more people could've been caught in the cross fire.

To act like one side or the other is completely right is completely asinine and idiotic. Both sides make clear, legit points and neither one is fully right.

I think I need to just let Jon talk for me on this issue from now on. Good use of "asinine". I like it.

[ATrain]

Yes, a big long list of people who have died (all due respect, their lives should not have ended that way) ... doesn't mean adding more guns will solve ANYTHING. Proving that people die from shootings all the time should HURT your point more than it HELPS it.

Lets see...if you actually read what he posted, you would've seen that when more guns were added, it actually HELPED. Don't be upset that it didn't HURT his argument and the stats disproved yours, especially since when there were more guns your crazy, screwed up scenario NEVER happened.

[ATrain]

You could argue that the stuff at Tech wouldn't have happened if there were more restrictions and psych evaluations before you were allowed to buy guns.

You could argue that if everyone at Tech had concealed weapons they would've stopped it sooner, but could also say that more people could've been caught in the cross fire.

To act like one side or the other is completely right is completely asinine and idiotic. Both sides make clear, legit points and neither one is fully right.

What happened at Tech happened, and its impossible to completely know what would've happened had this been in place or had someone other people had guns or whatever...but the stats tend to point out that allowing citizens to have guns helped the situation and saved lives. Someone who is determined to kill will find a way to get firearms, no matter the restrictions the government puts on gun purchases. Police always show up after shots have been fired. I'm just saying I think its a better idea to let citizens have firearms...there is a current trend of that being a major factor in preventing more casualties and fatalities.

[SuperJon]

But what happens when the wrong person gets ticked off? Look how mad people get while they're driving. Look how mad people get at sporting events. Look how mad people get when they argue with their boyfriend or girlfriend. Yea, it might help in some situations, but it's going to cause just as many problems as it helps prevent.

Should guns be illegal? No. Should we be promoting people to carry concealed weapons like you guys are doing? Not at all.

[ATrain]

But what happens when the wrong person gets ticked off? Look how mad people get while they're driving. Look how mad people get at sporting events. Look how mad people get when they argue with their boyfriend or girlfriend. Yea, it might help in some situations, but it's going to cause just as many problems as it helps prevent.

Should guns be illegal? No. Should we be promoting people to carry concealed weapons like you guys are doing? Not at all.

Just b/c someone gets mad doesn't mean they're going to kill someone. People carry weapons-specifically firearms-all the time in their cars, yet its not everyday you hear of someone getting shot b/c of road rage (at least in Lynchburg). Will there be some problems created b/c people carry concealed firearms? Yes, I'm not denying that, but at the same time I think it will help more than it will hurt.

[SuperJon]

There's no way to prove that, and that's what makes this such a stupid debate, and the fact that matshark even turned it political is a joke because it had nothing to do with that. You can throw out numbers and all of that of how this has helped in BFE or wherever but that's not America. Those people aren't Americans. If we went by the numbers produced in other countries we'd be drinking warm beer watching soccer and cricket while have a much better education system. Obviously we're a different breed over here.

Will it possibly help prevent the large shootings? Sure, why not?

However, will there be an extra 5, 6, or 7 single person shootings that make up for the lives saved in the large shootings?

It evens itself out. It's completely pointless to argue and think that you're 100% right on it.


Also, you say just because people get mad doesn't mean they'll shoot someone. I'd be willing to put money on it that people who were charged with assault because of a fist fight or something like that would've used a firearm if it was readily available to them at the time of the fight. Would it have been everyone? No, not at all. Would it be the majority? No, not at all. Would it be a larger number than we'd like to think? More than likely.

[matshark]

Yes, a big long list of people who have died (all due respect, their lives should not have ended that way) ... doesn't mean adding more guns will solve ANYTHING. Proving that people die from shootings all the time should HURT your point more than it HELPS it.

the only thing ur post shows is that you haven't read ANY of my points. everything ive presented has shown that when responsible civilians carry firearms, lives are saved and bad situations such as school shootings are mitigated to keep from becoming worse.

please show something to support your ideas other than "GUNS R BAD... GUNS KILL PEOPLE..."

[matshark]

But what happens when the wrong person gets ticked off? Look how mad people get while they're driving. Look how mad people get at sporting events. Look how mad people get when they argue with their boyfriend or girlfriend. Yea, it might help in some situations, but it's going to cause just as many problems as it helps prevent.

Should guns be illegal? No. Should we be promoting people to carry concealed weapons like you guys are doing? Not at all.

Just b/c someone gets mad doesn't mean they're going to kill someone. People carry weapons-specifically firearms-all the time in their cars, yet its not everyday you hear of someone getting shot b/c of road rage (at least in Lynchburg). Will there be some problems created b/c people carry concealed firearms? Yes, I'm not denying that, but at the same time I think it will help more than it will hurt.

to further this, there is only ONE recorded incident of a person with a concealed carry permit using their weapon following a traffic incident, and that incident was in self-defense... the idea that guns just make people shoot other people is completely ludicrous and the numbers just dont back it up.

[matshark]

You could argue that the stuff at Tech wouldn't have happened if there were more restrictions and psych evaluations before you were allowed to buy guns.

You could argue that if everyone at Tech had concealed weapons they would've stopped it sooner, but could also say that more people could've been caught in the cross fire.

To act like one side or the other is completely right is completely asinine and idiotic. Both sides make clear, legit points and neither one is fully right.

I think I need to just let Jon talk for me on this issue from now on. Good use of "asinine". I like it.

why? are you joined at the hip?

[matshark]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/ ... yguns.html

I think this story proves why ordinary citizens should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. Suppose the manager didn't have a gun...would the shooter have backed out of the doorway or continued firing, potentially hitting and killing someone (the shooter was a bad shot...which is why I say potentially).

hmm, the man that had his gun out FIRST, fired several times and didn't hit a thing... hmm...
could it be that his adrenaline was going crazy and he had no fine motor control?

second, the two guys that pulled their guns second A. didn't get shot in the head INSTANTLY B. ended the situation without firing a shot... hmmm....

could it be the Sharky knows what hes talking about?

No, honestly you don't, and you are ridiculously arrogant. It's really frustrating.

no, everything i've said i've backed up with sources and numbers. ur just frustrated that you have nothing to support your side. but, to be fair, if i were getting owned every time i opened my mouth and made a baseless claim, id be frustrated too.

[SuperJon]

to further this, there is only ONE recorded incident of a person with a concealed carry permit using their weapon following a traffic incident, and that incident was in self-defense... the idea that guns just make people shoot other people is completely ludicrous and the numbers just dont back it up.

Keywords being recorded and traffic.

The traffic incidents were just one example. God only knows what would happen if a few drunk college kids who all had concealed weapons decided to "have a little fun."

For everything you say can be prevented, the other side of the argument has just as credible of an example of how things could get worse. That's why this is a never ending argument and why neither side is completely right.

[ATrain]

There's no way to prove that, and that's what makes this such a stupid debate, and the fact that matshark even turned it political is a joke because it had nothing to do with that. You can throw out numbers and all of that of how this has helped in BFE or wherever but that's not America. Those people aren't Americans. If we went by the numbers produced in other countries we'd be drinking warm beer watching soccer and cricket while have a much better education system. Obviously we're a different breed over here.

Will it possibly help prevent the large shootings? Sure, why not?

However, will there be an extra 5, 6, or 7 single person shootings that make up for the lives saved in the large shootings?

It evens itself out. It's completely pointless to argue and think that you're 100% right on it.


Also, you say just because people get mad doesn't mean they'll shoot someone. I'd be willing to put money on it that people who were charged with assault because of a fist fight or something like that would've used a firearm if it was readily available to them at the time of the fight. Would it have been everyone? No, not at all. Would it be the majority? No, not at all. Would it be a larger number than we'd like to think? More than likely.

Obviously you missed my post about the incident in Palm Beach and didn't read all of matshark's post...we cited examples of where concealed weapons HELPED...AND IN AMERICA!!!

[matshark]

There's no way to prove that, and that's what makes this such a stupid debate, and the fact that matshark even turned it political is a joke because it had nothing to do with that. You can throw out numbers and all of that of how this has helped in BFE or wherever but that's not America. Those people aren't Americans. If we went by the numbers produced in other countries we'd be drinking warm beer watching soccer and cricket while have a much better education system. Obviously we're a different breed over here.

Will it possibly help prevent the large shootings? Sure, why not?

However, will there be an extra 5, 6, or 7 single person shootings that make up for the lives saved in the large shootings?

It evens itself out. It's completely pointless to argue and think that you're 100% right on it.


Also, you say just because people get mad doesn't mean they'll shoot someone. I'd be willing to put money on it that people who were charged with assault because of a fist fight or something like that would've used a firearm if it was readily available to them at the time of the fight. Would it have been everyone? No, not at all. Would it be the majority? No, not at all. Would it be a larger number than we'd like to think? More than likely.

SJ, the numbers on school shootings were ONLY from america. in fact, the only reason i used numbers from other countries is to show what happens when guns are outlawed (which they obviously ARENT here), but they ARE applicable to the debate. the beslan point was made to show what is POSSIBLE and what terrorists have planned on doing. (please tell me you read that post...)

if you are going to make the claim that more guns will produce more shootings, then please back it up with sources. who says it will even itself out? do you have proof? can you cite a study?

its not completely pointless to argue. i've shot down EVERY argument brought AGAINST having more guns, and done it WITH PROOF! and its not me saying it, its experts. go ahead, argue with the experts. im just citing their work.

furthermore, your argument that people fighting all the time would lead to more shootings if they had access to guns is flawed. people fight with fists because there are much lower repercussions for using. lots of people have knives, but you dont see them stabbing people every time theres a fight. NO, to the contrary. they fight with fists because the consequences are low enough that they dont have to worry about DYING if they lose. if they are worried about dying, THEN they will jump to the highest level of force they can get their hands on.

i had somebody attack me while i had a knife clipped to my pocket. did i pull it out and try to stab him? no! i choked him out with my hands. why would i want to introduce a weapon to the mix? that simply increases the danger to myself. that being said, i didn't feel it was a life threatening situation. if i HAD felt it was a life threatening situation, id have turned him into a pin cushion. when guns are used in defense, the person judges their life to be at stake and that use of the gun is necessary to protect themselves.

if having a gun automatically resulted in shootings, half the population of the US would be dead. (fortunately the gang problem would be solved) unfortunately, the thriving gang membership of the US shows this is simply not true, even among criminals. on an interesting note, if criminals (gang members) dont automatically shoot each other simply because they have guns, it must show that even criminals fear the repercussions of fighting with guns. (sure you get gang shootings, but there would be an almost 100% kill rate if your idea was true) it would reason that if criminals DONT respect the law, but DO respect the threat of force resulting from the use of a gun, PERHAPS law abiding citizens having guns would result in lowered criminal activity due to their fear of the repercussions of having guns used against them....

but, nah... couldn't be... it makes too much sense...

[thepostman]

you can find sources to prove anything you want...i tend to lean towards the gun side of things but there are some very good arguments on the other side of this debate...its kind of like when one study by one group of doctors say eggs are bad for you and then another group comes out later as says they are actually good for you...which one is right...hard to say...chances are its a little bit of both...which I believe is the same thing in this situation, one group says if everybody has guns it will deter crime and they back it up with some statistics, then another group of people say that no guns lower crime and they crap out some statistics that back them up...what one is right?? probably each side is right a little....

[matshark]

Keywords being recorded and traffic.

The traffic incidents were just one example. God only knows what would happen if a few drunk college kids who all had concealed weapons decided to "have a little fun."

a shooting involving a traffic accident... do you REALLY think it WOULDN'T be recorded? hmm... theres a wrecked car on the side of the road. oh look, a body with bullet holes in it. i mean its not like the car is going to move ITSELF! and if somebody gets shot and doesn't die, the odds are they are going to go to a hospital or call 911. come on SJ....

drunk college kids with weapons... thats kind of a small sample size, if you're right, and alcohol plays a big part in it, then lets include hunters... have u ever been hunting? ever been to a hunting camp? the VAST MAJORITY of hunters in the nation drink beer (copious amounts of beer) when they hunt. heck, of all my buddies that hunt, i can only think of 2 that dont drink on hunting trips. if you were right, hunters would be exterminating each other at absurdly high rates every hunting season. but they DONT. they just dont.

furthermore, once again, you've provided ZERO numbers, proof or other factual basis to back up your claims. ZERO! come on SJ... if you're going to make a claim, at least try and back it up with research...

[matshark]

you can find sources to prove anything you want...i tend to lean towards the gun side of things but there are some very good arguments on the other side of this debate...its kind of like when one study by one group of doctors say eggs are bad for you and then another group comes out later as says they are actually good for you...which one is right...hard to say...chances are its a little bit of both...which I believe is the same thing in this situation, one group says if everybody has guns it will deter crime and they back it up with some statistics, then another group of people say that no guns lower crime and they crap out some statistics that back them up...what one is right?? probably each side is right a little....

yeah, but only one side has provided ANY statistics in this debate...

[ToTheLeft]

You could argue that the stuff at Tech wouldn't have happened if there were more restrictions and psych evaluations before you were allowed to buy guns.

You could argue that if everyone at Tech had concealed weapons they would've stopped it sooner, but could also say that more people could've been caught in the cross fire.

To act like one side or the other is completely right is completely asinine and idiotic. Both sides make clear, legit points and neither one is fully right.

I think I need to just let Jon talk for me on this issue from now on. Good use of "asinine". I like it.

why? are you joined at the hip?

No, we use our brains. We don't just accept something as truth and spew nonsense about it, we think things through and come to rational decisions.

Jon is absolutely right, even if having more guns around at VTech had saved 15-20 lives, I think that those lives would have been taken elsewhere by people who SHOULDN'T have guns, but were alowed to have them and encouraged to have them.

There are no stats to prove that, it's just a rational viewpoint based on what I know about people, what I know about guns, and what I know about life. This isn't some nraownsmysoul.com article about how guns make people safer, or some article about how some good samaritan with a handgun stopped a shooting from happening. This is just how I believe, and I think that logic and reason tend to follow my way of thinking more than yours.

Then again, you also come from a viewpoint that thinks that Bombing causes Peace, and that by passing legislation to get rid of porn, pot, abortion, and who knows what else, that we will have a better society. People are people, the government and the right can say and do all they want, but people are still people. Train someone how to use a gun safely and encourage him to have it on him as much as he can for the sake of safety, but if his girlfriend cheats on him, don't cry about it when he shoots the guy who she cheated with in the crotch. You enabled that.

You can say these are just "crazy made up scenarios", but I think that putting more guns into more peoples hands is one heck of a crazy mixed up scenraio. Thinking that having a room with no guns is less safe than a room with 10 guns. It's ridiculous.

[thepostman]

true..but statistics are flawed anyways....but there is still that element of not knowing if more guns is a good thing or not...there is no way to truly know that...

[ToTheLeft]

Keywords being recorded and traffic.

The traffic incidents were just one example. God only knows what would happen if a few drunk college kids who all had concealed weapons decided to "have a little fun."

a shooting involving a traffic accident... do you REALLY think it WOULDN'T be recorded? hmm... theres a wrecked car on the side of the road. oh look, a body with bullet holes in it. i mean its not like the car is going to move ITSELF! and if somebody gets shot and doesn't die, the odds are they are going to go to a hospital or call 911. come on SJ....

drunk college kids with weapons... thats kind of a small sample size, if you're right, and alcohol plays a big part in it, then lets include hunters... have u ever been hunting? ever been to a hunting camp? the VAST MAJORITY of hunters in the nation drink beer (copious amounts of beer) when they hunt. heck, of all my buddies that hunt, i can only think of 2 that dont drink on hunting trips. if you were right, hunters would be exterminating each other at absurdly high rates every hunting season. but they DONT. they just dont.

furthermore, once again, you've provided ZERO numbers, proof or other factual basis to back up your claims. ZERO! come on SJ... if you're going to make a claim, at least try and back it up with research...

What research do you want dude? Get over it, there is no way to research this! You can't go to a lab and test this out, this is a real life problem that has to be REASONED through.

Although, here is a number for you...

THIRTY TWO.

The number of people killed by one man's gun at VTech.

Go back through your list, those are all numbers showing how GUNS KILL PEOPLE, and so the more of them there are, THE MORE PEOPLE WILL DIE.

I would say those are some "statistics"

[ToTheLeft]

true..but statistics are flawed anyways....but there is still that element of not knowing if more guns is a good thing or not...there is no way to truly know that...

[Hold My Own]

HMO,

The gun store I went to today did not have any Glock 27's, had about every other model. Will let you know if I see one at the show this weekend.

Thanks! What was the price range for the others?

[4everfsu]

Well if I was in a situation like VT, I would want to have a firearm within reach of me then on the other side saying this or that. What if someone else has a gun and is ticked off, yada yada yada.
I remember the incident years ago in TX where a ticked off boyfriend drove his truck thru a restaurant and started shooting people. One of the girls there left her gun in her car or home, if she had it she could have prevented her mom and dad from being executed that day.
Charlotte NC has a crime wave going on to the point where home owners are now arming themselves and not waiting for the police. Too many robberies and home invasion even in the rich section of town.
One guy at the city council meeting said in the last eleven years, he had lived in Washington DC., LA, Atlanta and NYC. He felt safe in those cities to the point he never owned a gun. He bought a handgun in Charlotte NC.