A Couple of Interesting Articles
In the wake of the Newtown Massacre and President Obama's call for a "national conversation about guns" I have seen a few interesting articles. I thought I'd share two.
I think this one has a very cogent argument for why laws like the '94 AWB don't work:
I think this one provides a very interesting look at the evolution of attitudes towards gun control in the US:
Mushi mo atsui hodo
Originally Posted by chuey
...Well **** if that isn't the most anti-Mr. Miyagi **** I have heard in ages.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but
Three rights make a left.
Note the use of the terms "gun-rights advocate" and "gun-owners".
This author and other authors published in the Atlantic freely ignore that "gun-control activists" are anti-civil rights activists.
Last edited by BadUglyMagic; 12/24/2012 7:10pm at .
From the WordPress blog -
Originally Posted by TEA
Now, he doesn't cite his sources, but any honest cop will tell you that a lot of hurt can come down between the time shooting starts and the law arrives.
The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.
A long but good read. Thanks for the link TEA.
The 14/2.5 numbers come from here:
Interestingly, it seems that tackling the shooter works best, or at least most often. ("Armed civilians" stop such rampages too, but less often. Correia either got the numbers secondhand or is fudging.)
Presumably, the size difference between beefy vice principal or football team captain versus armed nerd is the cause.
Anyway, I suppose we can call it "Grappling wins again!"
Last edited by Rivington; 12/24/2012 8:58pm at .
Oh no, rushing the shooter must often getting shot at close range. Two servicemen tried to rush Hasan, didn't work. The Major was taken(shot) down by a armed secureity guard. The shooters pick soft targets locations. Places where no firearms allowed.
Anybody hear or have of a single mass shooting at a gun show or a police stration? Joe
New Jersey. Not really a mass shooting but close enough:
Last edited by BadUglyMagic; 12/28/2012 9:46pm at .
According to the source, citizens more often stop rampage shootings with tackles than with guns.
Originally Posted by MarJoe
That's one time it did not work. Connecticut was another. That doesn't mean it never works. Did you read the source?
Two servicemen tried to rush Hasan, didn't work. The Major was taken(shot) down by a armed secureity guard.
Seems that at least some of the shooters target locations where they just know there will be a lot of people, or that they have some personal connection to. Has any shooter explicitly said, say in a note or manifesto, that they targeted Location X because no firearms were allowed?
The shooters pick soft targets locations. Places where no firearms allowed.
Last edited by Rivington; 1/02/2013 9:36pm at .
Irrelevant statistic is irrelevant.
Originally Posted by Rivington
Would you rather risk closing on someone with a firearm and engaging them empty handed, or seek cover and return fire?
There's a better than average chance that that's because people aren't allowed to have guns in places where rampage shootings tend to occur.
Originally Posted by Rivington
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO