School Shooting in Connecticut - Multiple Fatalities

[Norjagen]

I would fear for LG with your view of the universe.

The shoe is the pie of the Middle East. The poor bastards.

Can I quote that? Pretty please?

[The Black Forrest]

The shoe is the pie of the Middle East. The poor bastards.

Can I quote that? Pretty please?

Youngling. You don't ask; you do it!

[Farnhamia]

Can I quote that? Pretty please?

Youngling. You don't ask; you do it!

And because he asked, it is forbidden.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Yes, you do. And there is training involved in receiving said permit, in almost every state.

Got a source for that? I don't understand this to be the case at all.

I have a CT resident pistol permit, and there was a mixture of classroom work and range work in the NRA Basic Pistol course that's required.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?a=4213&q=494614

[Norjagen]

Can I quote that? Pretty please?

Youngling. You don't ask; you do it!

Come, now. This is the INTERNET! We must conduct ourselves like civilized gentlemen! Anonymity is no reason for brash action! lol

[Lunatic Goofballs]

The shoe is the pie of the Middle East. The poor bastards.

Can I quote that? Pretty please?

Share and enjoy.

[Forsher]

I'm really not seeing any particular validity to the argument that having guns in such a situation is a good idea.

When an assailant has a specific target, not doing anything if one isn't that target is a very good course of action. If it is just a massive rampage than one is a target anyway, having the gun if it is visible makes one a definite target. If it isn't than one must be confident in one's own ability to shoot with it for it to be any use.

As I said, if nether the gun nor the self can be seen by the baddie then that is my point. A gun is no protection from an invisible assailant.

If the baddie has a concealed weapon than, well, it is a concealed weapon and so, we don't know it is there.

As Dyakovo and others repeatedly told me in another thread while misuderstanding what I am saying, shooting a gun is not as easy as it is in the movies to hit your target.

These incidents rarely occur only instantly. Once the assailant starts shooting, his gun is no longer concealed; it's out in the open and aiming at bystanders. If you find yourself in that worst case scenario, maybe, just maybe, you'll have time to turn, see him shooting at other people, draw, and fire. Of course, as soon as you draw, you ARE a target. You've committed to taking the shooter's life if he doesn't surrender, because he will surely take yours if you don't. That's still far more preferable to sitting, unarmed, with your hands behind your head, as he goes from person to person in the room and executes them one by one.

Which he may or may not do. We are arguing hypotheticals. One for your argument and one for mine.

You are a target anyway in a rampage. Just another duck to shoot. If you take out your gun you are more a lion but that's just a priority upgrade.

In a pot shot taking sniper situation, nothing short of a barrier that the sniper can't shoot round or through is going to be of any use.

Even when it is the cowering behind the desk situation there are opportunities to do the sane thing and leg it... the principle is the same as in hide and go seek. And unlike in that, well, you don't "die" when looked at (a better comparison would be ball tiggy, an element of aiming is involved). You only die if you actually get shot, which is by no means guaranteed with a moving target, or even a stationary one. And, of course, you may not be found (you are just a duck remember, there may be a lion).

But perhaps the best thing to remember is that a gun is only as useful to the shooter and the shooter's skills at shooting are.

[Farnhamia]

Got a source for that? I don't understand this to be the case at all.

I have a CT resident pistol permit, and there was a mixture of classroom work and range work in the NRA Basic Pistol course that's required.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?a=4213&q=494614

Okay, that's one. He did say "in almost every state." That implies in more than, oh, 40 or so. That would be "almost every." Not that I disbelieve him, or you, but you chose to answer.

[Norjagen]

I have a CT resident pistol permit, and there was a mixture of classroom work and range work in the NRA Basic Pistol course that's required.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?a=4213&q=494614

Okay, that's one. He did say "in almost every state." That implies in more than, oh, 40 or so. That would be "almost every." Not that I disbelieve him, or you, but you chose to answer.

I did my best to answer, and I concede that you are right, and I apologize for my hyperbole.

[Forsher]

Okay, that's one. He did say "in almost every state." That implies in more than, oh, 40 or so. That would be "almost every." Not that I disbelieve him, or you, but you chose to answer.

I did my best to answer, and I concede that you are right, and I apologize for my hyperbole.

I also completely ignored it. Assuming there is training, the situation is quite different. He who hesitates is lost.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Not the point I was making. Nothing will stop him from randomly selecting you from the crowd of people he's targeting. That's bad luck.

Carrying openly will make him target you first, for sure, making it a bad choice.

Carrying concealed will, at worst, make you the target of a random shot, as opposed to his main threat and priority.

That's certainly preferable to not carrying at all. You do what you have to do to survive. Cower, draw, and wait for an opening if you have to. Or, if you have a clean shot at the outset, draw and take it before he beads in on you. I'm not saying it will completely safeguard your life, but with so many random variables already stacked against you, there's no reason to find yourself in such a situation at the willful disadvantage of being unarmed.

I'm really not seeing any particular validity to the argument that having guns in such a situation is a good idea (1).

When an assailant has a specific target, not doing anything if one isn't that target is a very good course of action (2). If it is just a massive rampage than one is a target anyway, having the gun if it is visible makes one a definite target (3). If it isn't than one must be confident in one's own ability to shoot with it for it to be any use (4).

As I said, if nether the gun nor the self can be seen by the baddie then that is my point. A gun is no protection from an invisible assailant (5).

If the baddie has a concealed weapon than, well, it is a concealed weapon and so, we don't know it is there (6).

As Dyakovo and others repeatedly told me in another thread while misuderstanding what I am saying, shooting a gun is not as easy as it is in the movies to hit your target (7).

1) I'm not really seeing the argument that mere possession is a bad idea.
2) ...Depends on what your definition of 'good' is, doesn't it. I'd imagine that target would appreciate someone helping them if Joe Asshole comes over with a gun to blow their brains out. But for personal safety, sure, avoiding getting involved is a good course of action if one doesn't think they can intervene safely.
3) THIS is the one that really gets me. If it is a rampage and someone gets shot because they drew their own concealed firearm and thus drew the shooter's attention...I'm not seeing the problem. They chose to carry and to draw and in the process they drew the attention of the guy who was blowing away innocent people. That isn't really an argument against carrying the gun unless you're the person who's going to be doing it and don't want to face the responsibility of being a prime target in such a situation. In which case, don't carry the damned gun. Simple.
4) We agree here, I just feel like I should point that out.
5) Not really sure what you're saying here.
6) I wonder how many incidents there have been with bad guys having concealed weapons and the licenses to support them? If they don't have the license then they are already breaking a law so I'm not sure what this is supposed to suggest.
7) No. No it is not and there are a good deal of people on the Internet who don't recognize that. That said, with the proper training and dedication (as I would contend a majority of if not all CC permit holders possess) one can be prepared for how difficult such a thing would be.

[Norjagen]

These incidents rarely occur only instantly. Once the assailant starts shooting, his gun is no longer concealed; it's out in the open and aiming at bystanders. If you find yourself in that worst case scenario, maybe, just maybe, you'll have time to turn, see him shooting at other people, draw, and fire. Of course, as soon as you draw, you ARE a target. You've committed to taking the shooter's life if he doesn't surrender, because he will surely take yours if you don't. That's still far more preferable to sitting, unarmed, with your hands behind your head, as he goes from person to person in the room and executes them one by one.

Which he may or may not do. We are arguing hypotheticals. One for your argument and one for mine.

You are a target anyway in a rampage. Just another duck to shoot. If you take out your gun you are more a lion but that's just a priority upgrade.

In a pot shot taking sniper situation, nothing short of a barrier that the sniper can't shoot round or through is going to be of any use.

Even when it is the cowering behind the desk situation there are opportunities to do the sane thing and leg it... the principle is the same as in hide and go seek. And unlike in that, well, you don't "die" when looked at (a better comparison would be ball tiggy, an element of aiming is involved). You only die if you actually get shot, which is by no means guaranteed with a moving target, or even a stationary one. And, of course, you may not be found (you are just a duck remember, there may be a lion).

But perhaps the best thing to remember is that a gun is only as useful to the shooter and the shooter's skills at shooting are.

We are very much in agreement, there. Nothing you can do against a sniper except run for hard cover. And, if you're going to be a lion, you need to be prepared to back that roar up with some bite, and do it without hesitation. In many cases, the shooter isn't expecting armed opposition, and the effect of suddenly having their own life in peril can, at times, be enough to shock them into surrender, or delay them long enough for a competent shooter to take the shot. I'm not denying that everything doesn't have to line up just right for your gun to do you any good. I'm presenting a simple question:
If everything DOES line up, and the stars align, and you have an opportunity to stop a tragedy like today's shooting, saving the lives of those who aren't able to save themselves, wouldn't you rather have the right tool for the job at your disposal?

[Benedictus]

I'm hearing numbers are between 14 and 27 dead.

Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20730717

28 dead with the inclusion of the murderer.

[The Zeonic States]

I'm hearing numbers are between 14 and 27 dead.

Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20730717

28 dead with the inclusion of the murderer.

20 Being children and the other eight being the Staff and Gunman.

[The Black Forrest]

I'm hearing numbers are between 14 and 27 dead.

Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20730717

28 dead with the inclusion of the murderer.

Most don't care about the killer.

[Norjagen]

28 dead with the inclusion of the murderer.

Most don't care about the killer.

Most papers report "27 killed," because it's an accurate measure of the tragedy. No one will mourn the killer's loss.

[The Zeonic States]

28 dead with the inclusion of the murderer.

Most don't care about the killer.

It's just statistics but i can see why personally.

[Wisconsin9]

28 dead with the inclusion of the murderer.

Most don't care about the killer.

Fuck 'im.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

28 dead with the inclusion of the murderer.

Most don't care about the killer.

I do. He was little more than a kid himself. When a 20 year old goes nuts like that, I wonder who failed him. He was as much a victim; we just don't know what he was a victim of yet.

[The Zeonic States]

Most don't care about the killer.

Fuck 'im.

I believe it's em

[Farnhamia]

28 dead with the inclusion of the murderer.

Most don't care about the killer.

I care. I want to know why, having killed his mother, he felt the need to go to the school where she worked and kill as many people as he could. I really do want to know. I hate it when mass murderers take the easy way out and kill themselves.

[Wisconsin9]

Fuck 'im.

I believe it's em

That would be plural, as in "them."

[Forsher]

Which he may or may not do. We are arguing hypotheticals. One for your argument and one for mine.

You are a target anyway in a rampage. Just another duck to shoot. If you take out your gun you are more a lion but that's just a priority upgrade.

In a pot shot taking sniper situation, nothing short of a barrier that the sniper can't shoot round or through is going to be of any use.

Even when it is the cowering behind the desk situation there are opportunities to do the sane thing and leg it... the principle is the same as in hide and go seek. And unlike in that, well, you don't "die" when looked at (a better comparison would be ball tiggy, an element of aiming is involved). You only die if you actually get shot, which is by no means guaranteed with a moving target, or even a stationary one. And, of course, you may not be found (you are just a duck remember, there may be a lion).

But perhaps the best thing to remember is that a gun is only as useful to the shooter and the shooter's skills at shooting are.

We are very much in agreement, there. Nothing you can do against a sniper except run for hard cover. And, if you're going to be a lion, you need to be prepared to back that roar up with some bite, and do it without hesitation. In many cases, the shooter isn't expecting armed opposition, and the effect of suddenly having their own life in peril can, at times, be enough to shock them into surrender, or delay them long enough for a competent shooter to take the shot. I'm not denying that everything doesn't have to line up just right for your gun to do you any good. I'm presenting a simple question:
If everything DOES line up, and the stars align, and you have an opportunity to stop a tragedy like today's shooting, saving the lives of those who aren't able to save themselves, wouldn't you rather have the right tool for the job at your disposal?

It was yesterday.

I would contend without appropriate tools an opportunity cannot exist. However, it is better to leave a dangerous situation than attempt to do something about it if one isn't able to. Do not jump in to save a drowning person if one cannot swim. Same principle applies.

[Norjagen]

Most don't care about the killer.

I care. I want to know why, having killed his mother, he felt the need to go to the school where she worked and kill as many people as he could. I really do want to know. I hate it when mass murderers take the easy way out and kill themselves.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: When these shooters take their own life, it leaves the public without a sense of closure. There's no trial, no interrogation. We will never know why he did this, unless he (as such killers are prone to doing,) kept some sort of journal or left some sort of notes for "posterity," knowing he'd end up dead.

[Farnhamia]

I care. I want to know why, having killed his mother, he felt the need to go to the school where she worked and kill as many people as he could. I really do want to know. I hate it when mass murderers take the easy way out and kill themselves.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: When these shooters take their own life, it leaves the public without a sense of closure. There's no trial, no interrogation. We will never know why he did this, unless he (as such killers are prone to doing,) kept some sort of journal or left some sort of notes for "posterity," knowing he'd end up dead.

On this, I agree with you.