Actually permit holders tend to be very cautious in regards to possibly shooting innocents. Some examples are the shooting instigated by Jared Loughner, and the Clackamas mall shooting. In both instances, a permit holder made a good decision not to shoot out of concern for shooting an innocent. Perhaps its luckier that the NYPD wasn't on hand in light of their recent performance.
Portraying concealed carry guys as the epitome of prudence is bullshit. In many cases the reason they don't actively participate in a shooting is because they hesitate during the crucial two or three seconds and it's already too late. Then they say hey look how careful I was. It's bullshit.
What's the truth, Greg? Are you referring to the Seattle bus incident, saying that an armed passenger would have made it better? Or did you mean in general, that concealed carry guys neither hesitate nor shoot prematurely?
Greg the criminal has the criminal pattern, shoot first ask questions later. No goal to apprehend criminals, just kill them. It's ok to kill an Alzheimer patient.
"Gee, unarmed citizens taking down an armed gun nut killer."
Not too long ago, a person entered a school with a rifle with the presumed intent of causing mayhem and murder. A school worker there was able to talk him into surrendering. While I laud both that school worker and the people on the bus who were able to subdue the armed robber. However, I certainly wouldn't use it as proof that guns aren't needed.
You wouldn't know unless you tried. It does work and this article is just one report of that truth. But your side won't even try, you could care less about saving lives.
So you're suggesting that using unarmed defense techniques against someone who is armed with a gun is a viable option? I'd like to see you sell that to the police first. Ever hear of the guy who was so dumb he took a knife to a gunfight? A prime example of how well that tactic works would be the shooting at Ft. Hood.
Yes, and if you had studied it at all you would know. But keep to your brick wall thinking. By the way, all over the country people give classes on how to subdue an armed person without being armed yourself. Google it.
Anon, I can see where if it is your only alternative to go on the offensive, even if unarmed. Its even briefed as part of active shooter response for federal employees, and is being taught in some schools. However, in those situations it is clearly a last resort. Especially if the armed person is beyond arms reach for instance. And if its so effective, perhaps you can explain why law enforcement hasn't adopted it as a standard and forgone carrying firearms. And then of course, there is the hacking death of a British soldier named Lee Rigby.
"Unarmed police arrived at the scene nine minutes after an emergency call was received and set up a cordon. Armed police officers arrived five minutes later. The assailants, armed with a gun and cleaver, charged at the police, who fired shots that wounded them both." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Lee_Rigby
You would think that a policeman who isn't issued a firearm would have been trained in these wonderful techniques. Yet, they waited for armed police to arrive. I have studied martial arts, and I'm aware of both what it can and cant do. As I mentioned earlier, permit holders tend to be quite cautious when making the decision to use deadly force. Let me leave you with one question, why do you think its reasonable or acceptable to force a law abiding citizen to engage in unarmed combat against an armed assailant?
No one is being forced, it's well proven tactics to disarm gun wielding criminals. It's taught and works all over the world. You obviously did not check the facts.
Perhaps you'd be willing to name a police department somewhere that has chosen disarm their officers because they had been trained with this wonderful technique. It certainly isn't being used in the UK, since they apparently weren't even willing to take on criminals with knives. When citizens aren't allowed to make the decision of how they want to defend themselves due to laws that don't allow reasonable permit issuance, they are being forced into having to fight an armed opponent if they are to defend themselves. Same states make the permit process quite burdensome, and some like New Jersey have a de facto ban on permits due to their requirements. In fact, the argument could be made that only states not requiring carry permits,(like Vermont) support a citizen's choice in regards to self defense.
I did not mention police, which shows again you have no clue what you are talking about, no surprise. But, police are taught those practices and use them. I'll move on now since you refuse to enlighten yourself on the issue, no sense trying to discuss it with you.
Actually permit holders tend to be very cautious in regards to possibly shooting innocents. Some examples are the shooting instigated by Jared Loughner, and the Clackamas mall shooting. In both instances, a permit holder made a good decision not to shoot out of concern for shooting an innocent.
ReplyDeletePerhaps its luckier that the NYPD wasn't on hand in light of their recent performance.
Portraying concealed carry guys as the epitome of prudence is bullshit. In many cases the reason they don't actively participate in a shooting is because they hesitate during the crucial two or three seconds and it's already too late. Then they say hey look how careful I was. It's bullshit.
DeleteMikeb shows once again that he's too biased to see the truth.
DeleteWhat's the truth, Greg? Are you referring to the Seattle bus incident, saying that an armed passenger would have made it better? Or did you mean in general, that concealed carry guys neither hesitate nor shoot prematurely?
DeleteGreg the criminal has the criminal pattern, shoot first ask questions later. No goal to apprehend criminals, just kill them. It's ok to kill an Alzheimer patient.
DeleteThe opposite of your comment, Mikeb.
DeleteGee, unarmed citizens taking down an armed gun nut killer. NO GUNS NEEDED TO TAKE DOWN THE GUN NUT.
Delete"Gee, unarmed citizens taking down an armed gun nut killer."
DeleteNot too long ago, a person entered a school with a rifle with the presumed intent of causing mayhem and murder. A school worker there was able to talk him into surrendering.
While I laud both that school worker and the people on the bus who were able to subdue the armed robber. However, I certainly wouldn't use it as proof that guns aren't needed.
You wouldn't know unless you tried. It does work and this article is just one report of that truth. But your side won't even try, you could care less about saving lives.
DeleteSo you're suggesting that using unarmed defense techniques against someone who is armed with a gun is a viable option? I'd like to see you sell that to the police first.
DeleteEver hear of the guy who was so dumb he took a knife to a gunfight? A prime example of how well that tactic works would be the shooting at Ft. Hood.
Yes, and if you had studied it at all you would know. But keep to your brick wall thinking. By the way, all over the country people give classes on how to subdue an armed person without being armed yourself. Google it.
DeleteAnon,
DeleteI can see where if it is your only alternative to go on the offensive, even if unarmed. Its even briefed as part of active shooter response for federal employees, and is being taught in some schools.
However, in those situations it is clearly a last resort. Especially if the armed person is beyond arms reach for instance. And if its so effective, perhaps you can explain why law enforcement hasn't adopted it as a standard and forgone carrying firearms.
And then of course, there is the hacking death of a British soldier named Lee Rigby.
"Unarmed police arrived at the scene nine minutes after an emergency call was received and set up a cordon. Armed police officers arrived five minutes later. The assailants, armed with a gun and cleaver, charged at the police, who fired shots that wounded them both."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Lee_Rigby
You would think that a policeman who isn't issued a firearm would have been trained in these wonderful techniques. Yet, they waited for armed police to arrive.
I have studied martial arts, and I'm aware of both what it can and cant do. As I mentioned earlier, permit holders tend to be quite cautious when making the decision to use deadly force.
Let me leave you with one question, why do you think its reasonable or acceptable to force a law abiding citizen to engage in unarmed combat against an armed assailant?
It's not about bringing a knife to a gunfight. The question raised in this post is that often bringing a gun to a gunfight only makes matters worse.
DeleteNo one is being forced, it's well proven tactics to disarm gun wielding criminals. It's taught and works all over the world. You obviously did not check the facts.
DeletePerhaps you'd be willing to name a police department somewhere that has chosen disarm their officers because they had been trained with this wonderful technique. It certainly isn't being used in the UK, since they apparently weren't even willing to take on criminals with knives.
DeleteWhen citizens aren't allowed to make the decision of how they want to defend themselves due to laws that don't allow reasonable permit issuance, they are being forced into having to fight an armed opponent if they are to defend themselves.
Same states make the permit process quite burdensome, and some like New Jersey have a de facto ban on permits due to their requirements.
In fact, the argument could be made that only states not requiring carry permits,(like Vermont) support a citizen's choice in regards to self defense.
I did not mention police, which shows again you have no clue what you are talking about, no surprise. But, police are taught those practices and use them. I'll move on now since you refuse to enlighten yourself on the issue, no sense trying to discuss it with you.
Delete