Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 108. (Read 450548 times)

I suspect this is the case because you just about never hear of "heroes."  They exist, of course.  But they don't fit somehow.  Consider, also, what exactly causes "local news" to become "national or international news."  There's a filter there, a selection process. 

Some years ago there was a case in my city where a gang came into the courtyard of an apartment complex after a teenager.  Six of them, all armed.  What they didn't know was that the kid's dad was an Army sniper on leave.  He was very polite and asked them to leave, but when they didn't and the shooting started, there were six gang members crawling off or limping off, all shot in the wrists or ankles with a 22LR.

Maybe I'm nuts but that to me is perfect international or national news.  There's a hero, evil thwarted, teenager saved, and a sort of humor to it all. 

But they NEVER pick items like that.

It's supposedly a big problem in science; the null set (when the simpler explanation is purely malicious revisionist history/malpractice/feigned innumeracy on the part of the vast minority of researchers who've focused on self-defense pros and cons). I'm not sure if this story is true since I heard it multi-hand away from the source, but:

The other Manhattan Project during WWII was a building or condo in Manhattan, where the world's greatest minds were gathered, so government/military officials could ask them advice. One of those minds was a statistician. He was presented with an exhaustive compilation of all the places on planes that had been struck by enemy bullets, and asked where the best place to put armor was. He answered immediately: all the places where the bullet holes aren't. Because all the planes that had been downed in enemy territory and unable to be recovered for analysis, had obviously been hit in those places. For the planes that were able to be studied for bullet hole locations, the pilot/copilot might have been hit, but they survived long enough to fly their plane back for analysis.

It's not a "mass shooting" if no mass (of people) was shot, only the first 3 or less victims, and possibly the intended mass murderer themself (either self-inflicted as is wont to happen when they see a gun pointing at them, or by a Good Samaritan aka "gun nut"). The most important thing is stopping a mass murderer instantly, so emergency medical aid/transport can be rendered. Most GSWs are survivable as long as those aren't delayed.

actuall quite an interesting read. I imqgined there must be storys of it happening its just that you never really hear of them. But like you say, maybe its just downplayed alot of the time.

I suspect that such events are downplayed.  The narrative pushed is gun control, and these events work in the opposite direction.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/RYANHATESTHIS/10-POTENTIAL-MASS-SHOOTINGS-THAT-WERE-STOPPED-BY-SOMEONE-WIT?utm_term=.cn0YEv7yA#.lspDgKpEG

I dont think this is strictly true, there was a piece on radio 2 some time ago just after the shooting in California or wherever it was and they spoke and asked if there have actually ever been any times when a mass shooting has been stopped by a gun holder and no one phoned in to say there had. the only thing ive ever read about a legal gun holder stopping a mass shooting was the article baddecker posted earlier. Maybe it just never actuall makes the news.

Mass murders only successful in "gun-free zones". "Gun-free zone" signs work perfectly.

yeah that's right , the government should allow the civilian to own a gun because not only the police needs it , we can consider it to the civil that guns are just for their protection because like what you have said the criminals are carrying firearms that is not licensed . and maybe death penalty would also a good solution for them if they made a crime .

Train the whole population to be police and military, and you won't need to pay for a police department or the military.

Banning guns for civil people is the worst thing the goverment may do...
Criminal always can get gun because he is a criminal! but civil person can not,so if criminal threatens him with a gun,he can only cry and hope the police will come ( they will in next 30 minutes,after u get shot and robbed ) . Knifes are not banned,but they are made also for killing people lol.
We should ban knifes!!!!!!! they may harm someone!!!!!!! just death penalty for killers=problem solved

Right!

In addition, what are police and the military? Are they simply not people? Yes. They are people. They are men and women.

Train the whole population to be police and military, and you won't need to pay for a police department or the military.

 

The police ARE the gangsters.   

The gun is stronger than the pen.
Often people won't accept what is written.

The pen is stronger then the sword.
Just talk out conflicts, not shoot them out.

No humans are hunted in my state unless its the gangsters hunting them but for that we have the police and they have gins.

Using the "gun control" advocate's logic:

No government with enough nuclear weapons to extinct the human race should be afraid enough of lesser weapons to feel the need to ban them for their own safety.

So logically, that only leaves government wanting to watch violent criminals safely victimize we the disarmed with impunity, so they can dance in our blood and on our graves as they "justify" disarming even more of we the people for violent criminals to safely victimize us.

The usual method for civilised country's to get their government out of power if they don't like what their doing is to vote them out.  What hell hole do you live in that needs the people to arm themselves to overthrow their own elected government?

This is a great idea. control gun use will make our lives comfortable. everyone civilians do not have access to a gun. retained control only of law enforcement officers. it will make our lives comfortable and happy. I fully support it.

My humble take on this is that government is controlling its people and avoid people from uprising against the government with the use of guns.

Come to think of it, if people can freely access to high powered guns and almost every individual get to have a possession of it, it would be difficult for the government forces to stop them when people are fed up with their government and want to overthrow an administration. It would be bloody as hell.

Well, I was just exaggerating. But isn't it make sense? I mean, the government are afraid of the people when it will convene and fight against the former, period.

To say it shorter, gun control is people controlling other people.   

This is called Gun Control