So you think you know the 2nd Amendment

[Spartana]

I'm not trying to obfuscate my own point. You have read the point I made and decided to instead purposefully ignore my point to make your own unrelated point.

There is nothing in the original advertisement you posted that even hints that the reason armed citizens are presumed to be better at taking down mass shooters is because of response times. Instead, the ad implies that both armed citizens and police are equal options for stopping the violence but that the police are just woefully inept even with their bigger guns.

The fact is that if would-be mass shooters didn't have access to assault weapons and their attendant ammo, it wouldn't matter if the citizenry was armed because there would be very few, if any mass-shooting attempts anyway. But I already said that.

This discussion is so much bickering.

I understand what you are saying Bunnys but so-called assault-style rifles aren't full auto military style rifles (which are banned). They are semi-auto just like most pistols are. And as I pointed out in several other posts, those pistols, as well as a standard 6 shot revolver, can be easily fired continuously and for hundreds of rounds if a shooter just changes out clips (magazines) on a pistol, or uses speed loaders in the case of a revolver. A person can carry as many pre-loaded magazines or speed loaders on their person as they want since they are so small. They can also carry several loaded handguns on them (like Adam Lanza did - just like all mass shooters have) and just grab a new one (or 2 or 3 or...) once they are out of ammo. Same with a .12 gauge shotgun (holds 9 rounds of ammo that can kill several people in one shot if close) or a standard hunting rifle that can hold 15 rounds. Both can be fired repeatedly very fast even though they are not semi-automatics (although there are a lot of semi-automatic hunting rifles and shotguns out there that will not be included in this ban). Both can be made much smaller and easily concealable. And while they are not easily reloadable like a pistol or revolver is, a mass shooter can carry several of them at once - as most if not all mass shooters have done. So banning one type of firearm or type of magazine won't eliminate mass shootings because most - all - can be done just as easily with firearms and magazines that won't be part of the ban. So unless you completely ban all firearms including hunting rifles and shotguns- really anything that can fire more than one round before needing to be re-loaded by hand - a ban a one firearm won't matter or make a difference. That is why addressing the intial cause of these kinds of shootings is so much more important then spending all that time and effort to get one type of firearm banned. That does nothing to address the problem or the cause.

As far as the response time issue - well if it takes less than a minute or two to gun down several people and it takes the police 5 or 10 minutes to respond after they get the first call, then waiting for the police to arrive on scene may mean many many more could die.

[Yossarian]

There is nothing in the original advertisement you posted that even hints that the reason armed citizens are presumed to be better at taking down mass shooters is because of response times. Instead, the ad implies that both armed citizens and police are equal options for stopping the violence but that the police are just woefully inept even with their bigger guns.

I don't know anyone making that claim, so congrats on shooting down your own strawman. 99.9% of the people discussing this point focus on the relative response times, not that some lady with a .38 in her purse should replace the county SWAT team.

[Mrs-M]

Whether you think it makes sense or not, they proved quite capable during the Portland Mall shooting, at the school shooting in Pearl MS and at the Appalachian School of Law in 2002 as well as several others I'd have to look up (if it weren't a sign of mental illness of course).

In each of those cases, the shooter was stopped by armed civilians well before police could respond.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Alrighty then, while we're on the topic of story-telling, let's NOT forget to add the EMPIRE STATE SHOOTING, where NINE INNOCENT BYSTANDERS/PEDESTRIANS WERE INJURED.

[freein05]

I am probably the only person on the boards that has had a 9mm pistol held to his head during a robbery. To this day i feel no need to walk around carrying a concealed weapon. The robbery happened about 10 years ago. I also feel we need much stronger gun controls. I don't read gun magazines. These type of magazines and the NRA are marketing tools for firearms manufactures. Capitalism at it's best.

I have also went from being a gun nut to the person I am today. At one time when I was a gun nut I had a Ruger 22 single six, a colt 45 auto pistol, a S & W 44 mag, a Remington auto loadin rifle 30-06 cal, a M1 carbine 30 cal ( it was fun to shoot), a Winchester model 101 12 gauge shotgun, a Remington 12 gauge shotgun with a 20 inch and 28 inch barrel, and a 22 rifle. The only firearms I have today are the Remington shotgun and the 22 rifle that my parents gave when I was 16. I plan on taking the shotgun to a gun shop and getting rid of it soon I will keeping the 22.

[Yossarian]

ROTFLMAO!!!

Alrighty then, while we're on the topic of story-telling, let's NOT forget to add the EMPIRE STATE SHOOTING, where NINE INNOCENT BYSTANDERS/PEDESTRIANS WERE INJURED.

By the police.

[Mrs-M]

By the police.

Your point being?

I was simply sharing an additional story (with everyone), so as to back-up the feeble argument, "those who have guns and use them (job related) are highly trained and know how to use them".

So... if those who are so highly trained (screw up), then I can ONLY imagine the rate of screw-ups that would occur with some trail-blazing hero in the crowd, looking to get his mug on the front cover of the NRA quarterly.

[Alan]

ROTFLMAO!!!

Alrighty then, while we're on the topic of story-telling, let's NOT forget to add the EMPIRE STATE SHOOTING, where NINE INNOCENT BYSTANDERS/PEDESTRIANS WERE INJURED.

Mrs M., you could look it up if you don't believe me. It's true.

[bae]

I was simply sharing an additional story (with everyone), so as to back-up the feeble argument, "those who have guns and use them (job related) are highly trained and know how to use them".

So... if those who are so highly trained (screw up), then I can ONLY imagine the rate of screw-ups that would occur with some trail-blazing hero in the crowd, looking to get his mug on the front cover of the NRA quarterly.

The actual real-world data shows that your concern simply isn't supported.

But you don't care about facts, you care about the culture war, as is evident by your words.

[Yossarian]

Your point being?

That unless you are advocating the disarmament of the NYC police force your story is at best irrelevant and more likely misleading when you posted it as a response to the list of incidents involving civilians. But far be it from you to try and mislead anyone so glad we have that cleared up.

[Mrs-M]

Originally posted by Yossarian.
you are advocating the disarmament of the NYC police force

In a perfect world, YES, but because we're dealing with a less than perfect world, I'll have to settle with a simple, no, this time around, but if I were a US citizen, the last thing I'd be looking at doing is turning more everyday common citizens into- save-the-day cowboys.