A good friend of mine responded to "dr3widgho5t" on the FJ cruiser forum.
Go to page 2, to see "dr3widgho5t" post, and page 3 to read my friends response "BlackCherryota"
Good stuff!
http://www.fjcruiserforums.com/forums/guns-firearms-discussion/98818-active-shooters-ignore-them-theyll-go-away-yeah-right-2.html
Cut and paste for those who don't want to go to the other forum
Post by dr3widgho5t:
Post by my friend BlackCherryota
Go to page 2, to see "dr3widgho5t" post, and page 3 to read my friends response "BlackCherryota"
Good stuff!
http://www.fjcruiserforums.com/forums/guns-firearms-discussion/98818-active-shooters-ignore-them-theyll-go-away-yeah-right-2.html
Cut and paste for those who don't want to go to the other forum
Post by dr3widgho5t:
Problem is that usually the "hero" (guys like you) ends up shooting a few innocent bystanders in the process. Just because you can hit a target at the gun range does not mean you are a "marksmen".
And in the confusion of panic trying to decide which person(s) holding the gun is the perpetrator(s) and which ones are the goodguys gets a little tough.
Familiar with the term "friendly fire"? Some people wearing combat gear and other wearing Arab clothing and it still happens.
Everyone on campus dressed the same, all pulling out guns to shoot the bad guy? The next armed "hero" to enter the theatre of engagement is gonna assume that everyone should be shot, so everyone is gonna shoot back so others are gonna see the good guy get shot by the good guys who must be the bad guys and start shooting them so guess we'll just call in an airstrike.
Trained, highly skilled, EXPERT marksmen. Them I trust. They should be armed, anywhere anytime.
Post by my friend BlackCherryota
Why does it matter what Steve does for a living??? Because you've managed to insert your foot in your mouth quite possibly further than Joe Biden himself. Just because you first group Steve into some "hero vigilante" problem crowd then define some condition that precludes Steve from being part of it, you're not any less of an a$ for saying it in the first place.
Man, I don't get it; what are you trying to say with your incredibly insightful first posts??
Oh, wait a minute, my inferior intellect prevents me from understanding your wise omniscient teachings
Let me make something clear to you: guns are not a supernatural power that take lives without the interference of a "trained professional marksman."
You posit that only those who are expertly trained in the handling of guns, acquisition of targets, and execution of active-shooter neutralization should be "...allowed at all times at all places." Your justification for this position is your personal belief (which belies any real-life experience) that the relatively untrained gun-carrying self-defending public will inevitably turn on itself because of unidentifiable aggressors, and that this will result in a "hero" shooting "a few innocent bystanders."
I quote:
Quote:
dr3widgho5t previously said: View Post
Problem is that usually the "hero" (guys like you) ends up shooting a few innocent bystanders in the process. Just because you can hit a target at the gun range does not mean you are a "marksmen".
...
Trained, highly skilled, EXPERT marksmen. Them I trust. They should be armed, anywhere anytime.
Sentence #1: When you say usually, are you referring to the twisted fantasy in your brain or is that based on legitimate real-life experience? Please support this statement with credible evidence that "Steve or someone like him" has in the past or will in the future inadvertently kill or maim an "innocent bystander" because of their defined inability to differentiate between aggressor and victim.
Sentence #2: So if hitting a target at a gun range does not make one a "marksman," then what does? How do you propose all of the gun-toting public should be trained? Shall we release some convicted felons in a field and let the "heroes" you hold such disdain for go to town? Are live targets the only targets that would provide an accurate representation of an active-shooter scenario???
Sir, I would also like you to answer the following:
If only expert marksmen are allowed to carry guns and defend the public, how do you propose we defend against other, MUCH MUCH more likely causes of death?
-By your account, most people are stupid. Therefore, stupid people wishing to drive an automobile shall enroll in a ten-week eight-hour-per-day intense driver training course. This will prevent all future fatal automobile accidents.
-By your account, most people are stupid. Therefore, stupid people wishing to consume alcohol shall be banned from purchasing alcohol. Only people who score above a 140 on the "dr3widgho5t's IQ Test" will be allowed to purchase alcohol legally. This will prevent all future alcohol-related deaths and injuries.
-By your account, most people are stupid. Therefore, all stupid people who fail to pass the "dr3widgho5t Health Exam" due to obesity will be forbidden from eating and drinking. Sedentary stupid people will be forced to exercise twelve hours a day. People with high blood pressure and/or diabetes and those who smoke will be sent to concentration camps. This will prevent all future deaths related to heart disease.
Do you see the logic there? No? Good. That means there's hope for you.
In the real world, you have two choices:
#1-Forbid the public from defending itself, thereby forcing dependence on a reactive police force. Tragedy will be guaranteed because an adequate defense mechanism cannot react in time to neutralize the cause in a timely fashion.
#2-Allow the public to defend itself, thereby releasing dependence on the police for protection. Knowledge of the public being capable of defending itself acts as a deterrent to potential criminals. When tragedies do occur (and they will), lives are lost. However, the number of lives WILL be significantly lessened if an individual carrying a gun can defend him/herself and those around him/her.
The difference between the two is the amount of life lost in an active shooter situation.
If you choose number one, you must understand and accept that by sacrificing your and others' ability (and right) to defend themselves, you are directly responsible for the injury and/or death of all victims affected prior to the arrival of police protection. Your first line of defense against an active shooter with a gun amounts to a Hail Mary and a thick table.
If you choose number two, you must understand and accept that there is a chance of otherwise innocent life being lost due to friendly-fire or the targeting of the defender by the aggressor. Despite the potential losses, the chance of survival for ALL potential victims is exponentially higher because of the presence of an individual trained to use a gun and is willing to use it long before the arrival of police.
Quote:
dr3widgho5t previously said: View Post
5. If Steve is a firearms professional then he, of all people, should be aware that most people should absolutely not be allowed to carry a gun.
Really, seriously, are you qualified to say this? So, if "most" people is roughly equivalent to three out of four, do you mean to say that (in your unending wisdom) of my mother, stepfather, girlfriend, and myself, only one of us is qualified to carry a gun? I'll have you know that you can go stick a broom handle where the sun doesn't shine if you think that you have the qualifications to say that any member of my family "...should absolutely not be allowed to carry a gun." Further, HOW DARE YOU speak that way of the public that DOES carry firearms and DOES enlist in the United States Military just to defend you and your right to say that!!!
You need to think before you speak. When you call out the general public as stupid and use it as justification for denying people of their rights, you are NOT going to get a Happy Welcome on this forum.
Where are you from? Oh wait, let me guess...California?
![[pot]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/037.gif "Stir the pot [pot]")
![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
