[looneycat]

Originally Posted by villagetinker

There are lots of valid points above. I wonder if a non-lethal device (gun with plastic/rubber bullets, bean bag round, etc, stun gun, or similar) would be sufficient to stun the shooter, and allow lots of people to overpower the shooter. This keeps the person responding to a shooter from killing someone by accident, but provides a possible way to overpower a shooter.
I do have concerns about the potential for accidents if there are lots of armed senior citizens running around with loaded guns.

Please do not shoot (pun intended) me, this is just my humble opinion.

are you willing to risk your life on it? many people maintain control when engaged with non lethal methods and continue shooting/fighting.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by JoelJohnson

Years ago an Massachusetts officer killed a black man while the black man was holding another man at bay in a car. Upon going to that black man it turned out to be a fellow officer that the officer worked with and knew very well.

How could this happen? In the heat of the moment the officer, who was veteran officer, lost focus. And this is not the first time that kind of thing has happened.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have guns, as far as I'm concerned you can have as many as you want.

What I am concerned with is that at the moment of engagement, a good man with a gun may make a fatal mistake and shoot the wrong person.

When Gabby Gifford was shot, one of the "good guys with a gun" came upon the scene and, according to his own account, "came within seconds of shooting an innocent person".

A few weeks ago in Texas, a man with his wife and child saw another man arguing with a girl, then the guy took out a gun and shot the women. The guy left and got into his car. The father went out with his, legal gun, and stood in front of the guys car and ordered him to get out. The guy got out and shot the father dead.

If a well trained officer can make a mistake, what's makes anyone think that they, even with some training, can do better.

If there is no choice, in other words there is no place to retreat to or your own family is in direct danger, then if you can, take the chance. But remember, your family would rather have a live chicken then a dead duck.

Are you suggesting, since mistakes can happen in a chaotic life or death situation, we should disarm ourselves and our police?

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by John_W

The only mistake the police made was he didn't recognize the other officer. Same thing happens in the miliary with friendly fire.

How much actual training do soldiers receive in basic training to handle a weapon and recognize a situation. Of course those with advanced training in infantry and similar fields, but how about the soldiers in peripheral positions thrust into close combat situations. You can say they had inadequate training, but you can train forever and not face every situation.

You want to use logic, but most of these situations are controlled by emotions. You can't regulate emotions, you can practice for it, but no one knows until they're actually faced with a situation.

And probably, the leo that was shot did not identify himself as a leo. too much left out of the story to know what happened, really.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by villagetinker

There are lots of valid points above. I wonder if a non-lethal device (gun with plastic/rubber bullets, bean bag round, etc, stun gun, or similar) would be sufficient to stun the shooter, and allow lots of people to overpower the shooter. This keeps the person responding to a shooter from killing someone by accident, but provides a possible way to overpower a shooter.
I do have concerns about the potential for accidents if there are lots of armed senior citizens running around with loaded guns.

Please do not shoot (pun intended) me, this is just my humble opinion.

This is Florida; gun country. If you have concerns about a lot of citizens walking around with guns, you may have picked the wrong state in which to live.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by JoelJohnson

Years ago an Massachusetts officer killed a black man while the black man was holding another man at bay in a car. Upon going to that black man it turned out to be a fellow officer that the officer worked with and knew very well.

How could this happen? In the heat of the moment the officer, who was veteran officer, lost focus. And this is not the first time that kind of thing has happened.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have guns, as far as I'm concerned you can have as many as you want.

What I am concerned with is that at the moment of engagement, a good man with a gun may make a fatal mistake and shoot the wrong person.

When Gabby Gifford was shot, one of the "good guys with a gun" came upon the scene and, according to his own account, "came within seconds of shooting an innocent person".

A few weeks ago in Texas, a man with his wife and child saw another man arguing with a girl, then the guy took out a gun and shot the women. The guy left and got into his car. The father went out with his, legal gun, and stood in front of the guys car and ordered him to get out. The guy got out and shot the father dead.

If a well trained officer can make a mistake, what's makes anyone think that they, even with some training, can do better.

If there is no choice, in other words there is no place to retreat to or your own family is in direct danger, then if you can, take the chance. But remember, your family would rather have a live chicken then a dead duck.

So what you're saying is that if I'm in a mall and some nut starts shooting people, I shouldn't try to shoot him because I might miss and hit an innocent bystander? Did you consider that the innocent bystander is probably going to be shot by this guy? It's a chance that has to be taken. If I were to miss with a shot and hit an innocent bystander but also hit the perpetrator several other people might be saved.

I believe that if one fifth of the people in the Pulse night club had been armed, fewer people would have been shot and fewer people would have died. Would there have been some friendly fire casualties? Maybe, but there also might have been 70 or 80 people who did not get shot.

The guy in Texas made a mistake. When you see someone shoot someone else, you are within the law to shoot that person. The fact that he had just shot two people and is still holding the gun represents a threat to you. You never use a gun to hold someone prisoner. If you take out your gun in that situation, you shoot it.

[ColdNoMore]

All too many CCW permit holders harbor secret fantasies, of one day playing Dirty Harry and being a 'hero.'

While I have one, I almost never carry (especially in TV).

Why?

Because I know the odds of ever needing it, are much smaller than being run over by a golf cart or hit by lightning.

A cell phone with a quick dial to 911, is actually the safest defense in almost any situation.

[outlaw]

I read that a person has a 95% chance of surviving a gun shot wound, unless it is a direct shot to the heart. I'll bet most gun control advocates AND gun owners thought guns were much more lethal than a 5% kill rate. Kind of shows the hyperbole and prejudice the media has built around the subject of guns and gun control. And, of course, this doesn't include the many, many non-lethal self defense uses of just presenting a gun.

[Sandtrap328]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

So what you're saying is that if I'm in a mall and some nut starts shooting people, I shouldn't try to shoot him because I might miss and hit an innocent bystander? Did you consider that the innocent bystander is probably going to be shot by this guy? It's a chance that has to be taken. If I were to miss with a shot and hit an innocent bystander but also hit the perpetrator several other people might be saved.

I believe that if one fifth of the people in the Pulse night club had been armed, fewer people would have been shot and fewer people would have died. Would there have been some friendly fire casualties? Maybe, but there also might have been 70 or 80 people who did not get shot.

The guy in Texas made a mistake. When you see someone shoot someone else, you are within the law to shoot that person. The fact that he had just shot two people and is still holding the gun represents a threat to you. You never use a gun to hold someone prisoner. If you take out your gun in that situation, you shoot it.

Wrong! Wrong!
Imagine the Pulse nightclub at 2 a.m., strobe lights, very loud pulsating music, young people ages 19 to 35 dancing, drinking for a few hours, maybe a bit of recreational drug usage - and 70 of the 350 have loaded guns!
A few shots ring out and suddenly the inside of the club has 70 people - hyped up with alcohol, adreneline, and maybe some Ectasy - start firing in all directions in the club with fog, darkness, and strobe lights.

I almost forgot to mention that shooting on an air conditioned well lighted indoor gun range is 100 percent Different than in a dark, noisy club with strobe lights. The first thing a gun instructor should tell students that shooting in a stress situation is not at all like in a controlled atmosphere. Bullets would be flying wildly all over the place.

Sorry, Doc Boogie, that scenario is not a good one. The solution is NOT to have the AR15 type rifles or large capacity magazines available. IF Mateen had only a handgun, he could have inflicted casualities but nowhere on the scale of 49.

And the comment about not holding a person prisoner with a drawn weapon but to shoot him? In some cases, that could result in a murder charge.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

All too many CCW permit holders harbor secret fantasies, of one day playing Dirty Harry and being a 'hero.'

While I have one, I almost never carry (especially in TV).

Why?

Because I know the odds of ever needing it, are much smaller than being run over by a golf cart or hit by lightning.

A cell phone with a quick dial to 911, is actually the safest defense in almost any situation.

And yet you have a ccw? 911 is great for a heart attack or traffic accident; but not so great when being attacked or mugged. And don't forget to take a picture, with your smart phone, of the mugger for the police.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by Sandtrap328

Wrong! Wrong!
Imagine the Pulse nightclub at 2 a.m., strobe lights, very loud pulsating music, young people ages 19 to 35 dancing, drinking for a few hours, maybe a bit of recreational drug usage - and 70 of the 350 have loaded guns!
A few shots ring out and suddenly the inside of the club has 70 people - hyped up with alcohol, adreneline, and maybe some Ectasy - start firing in all directions in the club with fog, darkness, and strobe lights.

Sorry, Doc Boogie, that scenario is not a good one. The solution is NOT to have the AR15 type rifles or large capacity magazines available. IF Mateen had only a handgun, he could have inflicted casualities but nowhere on the scale of 49.

And the comment about not holding a person prisoner with a drawn weapon but to shoot him? In some cases, that could result in a murder charge.

Why do you assume law abiding gun owners are going to be drinking and using drugs because they are in a bar? Have you never heard of or known a designated driver. Do you think all people that drive to a bar, drive home drunk? If we banned AR15s, then a mass shooting occurred with a shooter using a semi auto with five 30 round magazines, then you would say we need to ban semi autos or high capacity magazines. You will never ban away murder. Sensational mass murders of the Orlando style are tragic, but totally eliminating them would do little to reduce gun crime statistics.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by outlaw

And yet you have a ccw? 911 is great for a heart attack or traffic accident; but not so great when being attacked or mugged. And don't forget to take a picture, with your smart phone, of the mugger for the police.

I have one for the sole purpose of the occasional need to be in a place where it is prudent to carry.

TV, nor a bar/nightclub/etc. are one of those places.

My previous comment still stands.

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

All too many CCW permit holders harbor secret fantasies, of one day playing Dirty Harry and being a 'hero.'

While I have one, I almost never carry (especially in TV).

Why?

Because I know the odds of ever needing it, are much smaller than being run over by a golf cart or hit by lightning.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

I have one for the sole purpose of the occasional need to be in a place where it is prudent to carry.

TV, nor a bar/nightclub/etc. are one of those places.

My previous comment still stands.

Why would you not think other responsible ccw holders have the same legitimate concerns about safety as you? Why do you think many others fantasize about a violent exchange of gunfire simply because they have a ccw? Your generalization of the ccw holder is insulting and shows your extreme bias towards your fellow ccw holders. You indite a whole group as Dirty Harry wannabes, then as a member of this group, claim the higher ground of reasonableness?

[Shimpy]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

A cell phone with a quick dial to 911, is actually the safest defense in almost any situation.

Yep, then set back and wait 6 minutes for the average police response.

[Shimpy]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

While I have one, I almost never carry (especially in TV).

Why?

Because I know the odds of ever needing it, are much smaller than being run over by a golf cart or hit by lightning.

Do you have fire insurance? I'll bet those in those situations felt that it would never happen to them also.

[Shimpy]

Originally Posted by Sandtrap328

The solution is NOT to have the AR15 type rifles or large capacity magazines available. IF Mateen had only a handgun, he could have inflicted casualities but nowhere on the scale of 49.

It only takes about 2 seconds to drop an empty magazine and insert a fresh fully loaded one. There would have been less casualties but not by much. Problem was he was never challenged
He was in a place that sold mainly alcohol and CCW doesn't allow carry in such places.