Stopping an active shooter

[oftheherd1]

I'm not sure how someone can disagree with this. It's not false news or made up, you might not like the way it is but as it's not your country, it's not your problem either. Think the 'disagree' needs an explanation.

I would only disagree with that article from the point of view that it doesn't take into account, anything about the differences in culture. I think the use of the gun appalled the samurai. Their swords didn't count for much anymore. They didn't want them around. But hidden in that culture tidbit is the fact that the peasantry from that far back, weren't allowed to have weapons. But certainly, as you and others have said, a country's culture is its own; to live with or change without outside interference.

 

[CB Jones]

Why only him? All members see posts here and can ask.

Because you said it was unfair to him. Didn't realize pressing the disagree button was so hurtful.

And when you criticise others for not doing as you do that becomes more than an 'opinion'.

How is pressing the disagree button criticizing? So if I have a differing opinion then I'm criticizing someone or some country?

That's my point, we don't actually know do we?

I disagreed with the article comparing Japan and the US in it. Also from years as a homicide detective, I have a very strong opinion and advocate for people to be able to protect themselves. I am a firm believer in gun rights and self defense.

I disagreed but did not reply because I was simply trying to avoid getting into the politics of it as is the rule on this site.

I did not realize my motive in pressing the disagree button would be so important to some.

 

[PhotonGuy]

How Japan has almost eradicated gun crime

I disagree with this and I will explain why. If the bad guy didn't have guns he would've just used some other means to commit mass murder. He could've made a bomb and used that or he could've driven a truck into the crowd or, as this other poster said, he could've crashed an airplane into the crowd as he had a pilot's license. Bombings and vehicular homicides are what's happening in countries where there aren't that many guns, such as in Europe. This has been discussed before in the thread.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I'm not sure how someone can disagree with this. It's not false news or made up, you might not like the way it is but as it's not your country, it's not your problem either. Think the 'disagree' needs an explanation.

Well yes, as I posted in this other thread, its fine to disagree with somebody but if you do it warrants an explanation.

 

[PhotonGuy]

And also remember that he's in an elevated position and you have no idea where the shots are coming from. Returning fire even if you are sure of where he is will just get you pinned down behind some object and unable to return fire. You'll just make the people around you a target.

However, another armed guest at the hotel might've been able to stop him, but they don't allow weapons in the hotel.

 

[drop bear]

I disagree with this and I will explain why. If the bad guy didn't have guns he would've just used some other means to commit mass murder. He could've made a bomb and used that or he could've driven a truck into the crowd or, as this other poster said, he could've crashed an airplane into the crowd as he had a pilot's license. Bombings and vehicular homicides are what's happening in countries where there aren't that many guns, such as in Europe. This has been discussed before in the thread.

Ok but then guns don't work for self defence either because a bad guy will just have more guns or shoot you when you are not looking.

Or is there some sort of logical back flip that makes the argument ok in one instance but then completely false in the other.

 

[CB Jones]

Well yes, as I posted in this other thread, its fine to disagree with somebody but if you do it warrants an explanation.

Ok but that is only your opinion....the site does not require it.

I look at it as the site notifies you when someone disagrees.....if you care about why they disagreed then ask them why and discuss it.....if you don't care then ignore it.

But by no means are we entitled to an explanation.

 

[PhotonGuy]

But hidden in that culture tidbit is the fact that the peasantry from that far back, weren't allowed to have weapons.

But that didn't stop the peasantry from having weapons anyway. Where do you think the bo staff came from? Or the nunchaku? Or the tonfa? Or the sai? Or the kama?

 

[PhotonGuy]

Ok but then guns don't work for self defence either because a bad guy will just have more guns or shoot you when you are not looking.

If guns didn't work for self defense than police wouldn't carry them.

 

[CB Jones]

Ok but then guns don't work for self defence either because a bad guy will just have more guns or shoot you when you are not looking.

Or is there some sort of logical back flip that makes the argument ok in one instance but then completely false in the other.

Evil and insanity exists in the world and it will always find instruments (guns, blades, clubs, bare hands, etc...) to use to commit acts of violence.

I believe good people should be afforded the tools to defend themselves against these evil deeds.

I know of and have worked way too many homicides that the victim might have been able to defend themselves had they been armed.

On a personal note, 20+ years ago my cousin was home with her 3 month old baby when an escaped convict broke into her home and was between her and her baby asleep in its crib.

She had 3 options:

A) surrender to the escaped con and be at his mercy

B) flee the home and leave her child and seek help at her neighbors 3 miles away

C) use force and protect herself and her child.

Luckily she was able to grab a gun from the gun cabinet shoot the intruder, get to her baby (wounded bad guy fled to the bathroom) and flee with her baby out of the house.

 

[oftheherd1]

But that didn't stop the peasantry from having weapons anyway. Where do you think the bo staff came from? Or the nunchaku? Or the tonfa? Or the sai? Or the kama?

Is there a reason you think talking down to me will convince me of your stance? I know as well as most of the oral history of weapons conversion of every day implements.

If guns didn't work for self defense than police wouldn't carry them.

That seems to me a poor argument. What police in what country? Many country's police don't carry guns, or only on a limited basis. In the US, most police and a lot of security, do in fact do carry guns. It has been a part of our culture since before we had a national culture. But not all, so in a lot of cultures they appear not to be needed to make things "work."

 

[PhotonGuy]

Is there a reason you think talking down to me will convince me of your stance? I know as well as most of the oral history of weapons conversion of every day implements.

Im not talking down to you, just pointing out facts, you're taking it the wrong way.

 

[Tez3]

Ok but that is only your opinion....the site does not require it.

I look at it as the site notifies you when someone disagrees.....if you care about why they disagreed then ask them why and discuss it.....if you don't care then ignore it.

But by no means are we entitled to an explanation.

If you click on something to signify your like/dislike of something people are entitled to wonder what the hell you were thinking though. A long time ago I posted up about the death of someone and another poster clicked 'funny', another time I posted that I liked doing a particular technique someone clicked 'disagree', both posters were thought ignorant and stupid by everyone else.

I know of and have worked way too many homicides that the victim might have been able to defend themselves had they been armed.

This is your experience, in your country but it's not the experience of others in other countries. The homicides we've had in our area (2 in 40 years) wouldn't have been prevented by victims having a gun. One was when a husband stabbed his wife after finding her in bed with another man, he also stabbed the lover but he survived. The other was a couple of drunks fighting, one said dare you to kill me to the other so he did. Most murders are domestic ie people known to each other, the rest are gang related/terrorism/paedophiles and sex offenders.
We typically have less than 600 homicides a year,
"The Home Office Homicide Index showed there were 518 homicides (murder, manslaughter and infanticide) in the year ending March 2015 in England and Wales. This represents a decrease of 5 offences (1%) from the 523 recorded for the previous year.

• 
  Over recent years, the number of currently recorded homicides has shown a general downward trend and the number for the year ending March 2015 (518) was the lowest since 1983 (482)."

• In the UK however the homicide figures also include manslaughter and unlawful killings ( military killed by insurgents/terrorists such as in Afghanistan) and infanticide which actually is the most disturbing figures as you can see if you read this. Other disturbing information is this "(the peak in the year ending March 2003 includes 172 homicides committed by Dr Harold Shipman)." later in the report. Shipman was a general practitioner who liked to kill his patients, that's the total of known victims, there is likely to have been more.

• Homicide - Office for National Statistics

 

[Dirty Dog]

That seems to me a poor argument. What police in what country? Many country's police don't carry guns, or only on a limited basis. In the US, most police and a lot of security, do in fact do carry guns. It has been a part of our culture since before we had a national culture. But not all, so in a lot of cultures they appear not to be needed to make things "work."

It's worth pointing out here that even in those countries where not all police are armed, there are, without exception, armed units. So clearly they are needed to make things "work."

 

[Dirty Dog]

This is your experience, in your country but it's not the experience of others in other countries. The homicides we've had in our area (2 in 40 years) wouldn't have been prevented by victims having a gun. One was when a husband stabbed his wife after finding her in bed with another man, he also stabbed the lover but he survived.

Which supports the argument that banning guns doesn't stop the event. It just requires the bad guy to use a different weapon. Like a knife. Or a car. Or a bomb. Or...

And of course, your statement that the victim being armed wouldn't have stopped the murder is unsupported. Had either the woman or her lover been armed, there is every reason to think that they could have defended themselves against someone armed with a knife.

 

[Tez3]

Which supports the argument that banning guns doesn't stop the event. It just requires the bad guy to use a different weapon. Like a knife. Or a car. Or a bomb. Or...

And of course, your statement that the victim being armed wouldn't have stopped the murder is unsupported. Had either the woman or her lover been armed, there is every reason to think that they could have defended themselves against someone armed with a knife.

Unlikely as the woman was stabbed in the back, she was on top of her lover. Neither of the lovers saw or heard the husband. In was also in married quarters so there was a distinct lack of sympathy for her and the lover, most for the husband who'd come back off exercise unexpectedly to find that. In France he was have got away with it because it was unpremeditated and therefore a crime of passion, temporary insanity. the second murder was this one. Veteran admits killing 'gentle giant' at home for ex-soldiers

The murders here actually have little to do with guns and the banning or not of them. The figures aren't an argument either way just an illustration of the type of murders here. When you read the statistics you think well that could have been prevented by the victim having a gun but once you've read the details it's hard to see where it would have actually helped. We've had a few so called honour killings here, girls murdered by their parents, we had a few people killed by their mentally ill children ( adult), many women killed by their partners, ( one could argue that these would a good case for carrying a gun but sadly the psychological abuse that usually comes with this means they wouldn't have defended themselves by using a gun). The infanticide figures I find very disturbing.
the thing to remember is that we are a different country, different culture and look at things differently here. I have no ideas or suggestions or even thoughts on American gun control/violence or whatever because it's not within my area of understanding, what I'm saying is cannot say that people here wouldn't have been killed if they'd had a gun. The reasons people kill are the problem, not the means. We don't ban guns to stop people killing others with them, we ban guns because time and time again the people say they don't want armed civilians. The culture in our country is such that civilians without guns suits it..... it suits us. You may think it's wrong but everything points to us being right... right for us. For you, a different culture, a different country there are different ideas and solutions, if you consider there's a problem, looking to other countries won't solve it. If you consider there's no problem then looking at us doesn't mean a thing.

 

[oftheherd1]

Im not talking down to you, just pointing out facts, you're taking it the wrong way.

I didn't feel so, since you asked a question as if I didn't know or believe something that is commonly accepted as fact. If you didn't mean it that way, OK.

 

[oftheherd1]

It's worth pointing out here that even in those countries where not all police are armed, there are, without exception, armed units. So clearly they are needed to make things "work."

Well, I did point out some did on a limited basis. Did you check to see how many of those countries'
policing is done by the military?

It's funny in a way. I support citizens in the US being able to own guns in their homes, or CC for some people. But I think we sometimes try to overlay other countries with our beliefs and laws, when they may not want that. If we believe we want to do that, we should. If others question that we can point out it is part of our culture and supported by our constitution. If they think we are unwashed barbarians, they probably shouldn't come visit us, but respect our culture as they would want us to respect theirs.

 

[drop bear]

If guns didn't work for self defense than police wouldn't carry them.

Police still get shot.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Well, I did point out some did on a limited basis. Did you check to see how many of those countries'
policing is done by the military?

Nope. I don't see it as relevant. The point (and the only point I was making) is that there really isn't any such thing as a country that doesn't arm its Law Enforcement people. They may not arm them all, but there are ALWAYS armed LEOs.