Cops lying a out evidence in Colorado shooting

[Nathan K.]

I don't believe that to be true for the general gun owner. I mean do you really believe that the general population is capable of the claims you make above? Even those that you talk about, with all their training, to say that they are mentally prepared to protect themselves and others is a very bold statement. How can you say something like that? That is a complete subjective evaluation on your part. You only know how you will react when it happens, and most will panic just like the average joe. Even police and military with all their training and experience, panic, get nervous, and fuck up all the time.

I wasn't talking about general gun owners. I was talking about permit-holding concealed carriers. And yes, I can say with confidence that the traits I described belong to the vast majority. There is an entire culture of gun owners in America committed to the ethos of the watchdog and protector. I know that it's difficult to understand for the actual "average joe" as only a miniscule percentage of the world's population would ever consider risking their own lives for another.

He was heavily armored, wearing a ballistic helmet, gas mask, tactical vest, ballistics leggings, metal shin guards and armored boots. He had the element of surprise. He threw gas grenades and start shooting a semi-automatic assault rifle at the crowd, popping anything that moves at a very fast rate. The cinema was dark, people were screaming and panicking everywhere, probably even pushing into one another. This is absolute chaos and yet you think some gun carriers in the audience would have been able to take the shooter out with their small caliber guns, that they wouldn't have shot themselves by mistaking one another as the original shooter and that they wouldn't kill other innocents with stray bullets. How can you think that this is "just completely unrealistic" is beyond me.

You're making assumptions about a topic with which you aren't familiar. Yes, the situation you described is unrealistic. The repetitive muzzle blast from the shooter would make him stand out like a beacon in a darkened theater. Your average ccw holder/carrier will not fire recklessly into a crowd; he will shoot only when he is sure of his target and has a clear line of fire. You're right, this is no movie.

Whatever equipment the aggressor was wearing only makes a small difference. Body armor does not turn one into a walking man-tank; it merely provides defense against projectile penetration. Well aimed shots to the chest and especially the head of an armored assailant can cause incapacitation. Also, there are usually always weak spots present such as the neck, face, groin, and joints.

I don't think that is true at all and that these cases you mention are the minority. I have never seen any numbers to support what you are saying here. Where did you get this information?

Of course you have not seen anything to support this. That was my point. The information is not readily available through mainstream channels, and you have failed to effectively research the integrity of your beliefs.

Take a look at this fact sheet. Here are some samples:

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.
* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."

Follow this link for more:

http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

You can also follow this link for stories and individual cases:

http://gunssavelives.net/

Of statistics that do exist, the number of crimes prevented by permit holders is still less than accurate because many are not reported. For instance, I've personally stopped two muggings (including my own), and apprehended a purse snatcher (though I didn't need to draw, just needed sure-footing and a RNC). None were reported.

My point was, if you have a gun you might be able to protect yourself, but you will not be able to protect your wife, kids, grand parents, etc, for the majority of their daily lives. And this is about them not you or me.

I still don't understand. I might not be able to protect my family all the time, so I shouldn't try to protect them at any time?

Guns are not equalizers! If i am a criminal and i think my target has a good chance of having a gun, i will bring a bigger gun, i will wear body armor and i will shoot first and ask questions later. I will also bring some help instead of doing it alone. I also have the factor of surprise on my side which means the victim probably wont even have time to react. Also because the target might have a gun, i am very jumpy and nervous, and will start blasting away at the slightest sign of resistance. Of course since me and my partners are carrying semi-automatics bullets will fly everywhere and innocents will get hit with stray bullets, even the ones carrying guns themselves.

Again, obviously, you have done absolutely no research on the topic. To make a statement like this, you would have to put just a fraction of energy into trying to understand the criminal mind.

If you are a criminal, and you think your target has a good chance of having a gun, you will choose a different target. A criminal is a predator, and predators seek out prey, not other predators. They choose victims; it's that simple. Just brandishing a weapon (showing some teeth) is usually enough to stop an attack and cause the attacker to flee. Most criminals are not professional killers. They are frightened, untrained weaklings who seek out the helpless and vulnerable.

At the very least it would make it much harder to kill and hurt that many people. Also, how do you defend yourself from a stray bullet? You think you will always be the first to shoot? And that your family will never be the one on the path of the bullets?

You're trailing off again. Just because you can't plan for every contingency doesn't mean you should never plan for anything.

The U.S. is the most armed society in the world by far and yet you are not even close to being the safest.

Number one, the U.S. in not the most armed society in the world. Number two, I didn't say that the U.S. was the safest society. I said that communities imbued with gun culture within the U.S. are usually the safest in the nation, which is true. And conversely, some of the most gun-restrictive communities in the nation (i.e. Chicago, Washington D.C., New York City) are among the most dangerous.

I also said that countries with strict bans on weapons tend to have higher crime rates than America, which is also true. Surveying these statistics for international crime rates, you'll find that countries like England, Sweden, Australia, and Canada often have higher violent crime rates in many areas. Even Portugal has a higher rate of robbery than the U.S.:

http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobta...pplication/pdf

I'll end this thought with one more thing. Switzerland has more firepower per person than any other country in the world. Almost every adult male is legally required to possess a firearm. Switzerland has virtually zero gun crime and is one of the safest countries that exists. They have successfully maintained neutrality through multiple regional conflicts and world wars. Hitler ignored them during WWII, as they would be impossible to invade and conquer. A Swiss motto is "Prévention de Ia guerre par Ia volonté de se défendre", "Prevention of war by willingness to defend ourselves."

Your gun is nothing compared to the power of the police and military. They are organized, trained, armored, experienced, have tanks, Apaches, bombs, drones, etc. This idea that by having a gun you will keep your institutions in check is very unrealistic. Again, if they think you have a gun they will just put you down faster.

I'll keep my answer to this short, because I don't have the time to describe the intricacies of guerrilla warfare. Or how America's independence was won by unstructured, unranked, armed civilians. Or how modern technology will always have a problem competing against a few brave men who know themselves, their weapons, and their environment.

So, what I'll say is this. America has roughly 1.5 million active servicemen and women in the military. America has over 6 million concealed carry permit holders. (Yes, not gun owners, just people who have carry permits.) Do the math and realize that most of the kids in our military would have a problem with gunning down their fathers and other fellow Americans. That's what the police are for.



<CONT>

[Nathan K.]

Wise Americans that had slaves, no women's rights, etc. They were just people. People as flawed as we. The American constitution is a beautiful thing and no doubt one of the most important documents ever written in the world. However they lived in a very different time, a time without semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons, among many other aspects. You have to read it in that context.

There is no difference between the human of today and the human of ten thousand years ago, much less two hundred years ago. Technologies change, policies change... But the human mind and the cycle of violence we inflict upon each other does not. My forefathers created our Constitution and Bill of Rights around one, single concept - That the threat of tyranny is always present. That has not changed, nor will it ever.

I completely agree with you on the justice system relying on the war on drugs, but what is this war on weapons you talk about? You are the most armed society in the world. Politicians are afraid of going against the NRA. Did you hear Obama say anything or do anything about gun control during this tragedy? or during his mandate so far? no. Watch his speeches before he was president and you will see the power of the gun lobbyists.

The 2nd Amendment ensures our right to bear arms, however, that right is not respected by our government, powerful anti-gun lobbyists, and revisionists like yourself. Every year, new gun laws and restrictions are enacted, making the purchase, possession, and carrying of firearms more and more difficult. In many places, our 2nd Amendment is outright ignored and firearms in these areas (New York City, for instance) are outlawed. Even if you possess a firearm legally in America, you can expect to face some sort of harassment, as the list of regulations is confusing and constantly expanding.

The NRA is not a friend to gun owners. They are fakes, who repeatedly support measures to keep guns restricted. Their survival (financial well-being) depends upon gun rights being in constant threat, so they collude with anti-gun politicians (who are also insincerely "pro-gun"), to do just enough to pretend they care about our rights while keeping things strictly under control. Due to lobbying, they also receive proceeds from every gun carry permit purchased, so making sure that permits are difficult to attain and expensive is part of their agenda. The true pro-gun organization committed to deregulation and the preservation of our right to bear arms is the Gun Owners of America. - www.gunowners.org

And as to Obama, that's just ridiculous. Obama personally supported bans of handguns and semi-automatic weapons before he became president. Obama's administration supported the secret Fast and Furious Operation where they filtered automatic weapons into Mexico with hopes that it would strengthen gun control laws here, and they were caught. Just these past few weeks, Obama has been working to help pass the UN Small Arms Treaty, which would bypass U.S. sovereignty and aim to introduce mandatory, global firearm registration.

Guns make it a lot easier to kill/hurt someone, especially if there is no limits to what you can buy. People are buying assault rifles, tons of ammo, modified clips with more bullets so that they don't have to reload as much, etc. And this is what makes you feel safe?! Do you think people should be allowed to buy so much firepower?

Absolutely. Buying something doesn't hurt anyone. Too many people believe they have the right to adjudicate what other people should or should not be "allowed" to do. If these restrictions begin to limit non-violent personal choices, you are abandoning the realms of a free society.

Would gun control solve all the crime problems? of course not. But it would with a doubt reduce the number of deaths and stop this escalation of violence...

With a very big doubt.

I think your gun won't give you that power, but only an illusion of power.

Sorry, there is a very real power in guns. Ask the millions of Slavs and Russians killed by their government. Ask the millions of Chinese killed by their government. As the millions of Cambodians killed by the Khmer Rouge. As the millions of Jews, Germans, Austrians and other Europeans killed by the Nazis. Ask the hundreds of thousands of Cubans killed by Castro and his stooges. Ask them all what happened to their guns before they were slaughtered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAU9AJfttls

www.theagitator.com

The End.