Why?

[Matt Black]

Matt,
Would you agree that these "several in the crowd" who were 'armed" would have most likely only carried pistols? Sir, according to what I read, the shooter was over 1000 feet (304.8 meters) from the crowd. The relatively low velocity of pistol rounds, coupled with short barrels, makes one practically ineffective at that distance. You would most likely hit an innocent person than the perpetrator so discharging a handgun would be reckless at best.. Only a rifle or something like a shotgun slug would have worked at that distance and nobody walks around with one of those stuck down in his waistband.

So, I repeat: a good guy with a gun there would not have stopped the bad guy with the gun

 

[Matt Black]

Agreed. So what?

Thanks for agreeing with my point then

 

[carpro]

Largely self inflicted...unlike the 17 who died last week. Fix that and then you ca complain about being lectured...until then the comparison is inaccurate

You're killing your children at much higher rates with alcohol. Dead is dead. Your entire country should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[carpro]

Strange also that some advocate an 18th century solution to a 21st century problem whilst treating it as a sacred cow on the way.

We already have security scanners in some schools in the inner city in particular...but they are aimed at knife crime which is a problem in some quarters here.

Breathalizers are more in order. If your children aren't knifed to death, they drink themselves to death. Some choice.

 

[carpro]

Thanks for proving Rob correct and you wrong. From the very article you quoted as your "cite."

"A third lesson: It would have been incredibly difficult for any bystander, or even local law enforcement personnel on the ground, to return fire and stop Paddock during his attack."

Of course. Handguns have limited range and not many people carry open carry rifles. More ignorance on parade by a Brit.

 

[carpro]

Brits don't need guns. They kill their children with knives and alcohol.

Child knife deaths in England and Wales set for nine-year peak

Knife crime has killed 35 children and teenagers in England and Wales so far this year, meaning that 2017 is likely to be the worst year for such deaths in nearly a decade.

Official figures exclusively obtained by the Guardian show that this year will be the worst since 2008 when 42 young people aged 19 and under lost their lives as a result of an attack with a knife.

 

[Rob_BW]

s
Sorry, this the other article I thought had loaded up:
'It was hysteria. People were trampled': panic as Las Vegas gunman opened fire
"I didn't want to be mistaken for a bad guy."

Either which way, the accounts give the lie to the myth that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

But didn't that shooter commit suicide once faced with armed good guys?

 

[Matt Black]

Yes. The police/ SWAT team. As I've said, no objection with them being armed. No armed civilians were responsible for stopping the shooter

 

[Matt Black]

You're killing your children at much higher rates with alcohol. Dead is dead. Your entire country should be ashamed of themselves.

More deflection. You want to talk about alcohol in the UK, start a thread on it but don't keep derailing this one.

 

[carpro]

More deflection. You want to talk about alcohol in the UK, start a thread on it but don't keep derailing this one.

You should welcome the perspective. It's based on facts, not ignorance, like your anti gun screed.

 

[TCassidy]

One of the points that emerged from.the Vegas shooting is that, whilst several in the crowd were armed, they were afraid to shoot at the perpetrator lest they be thought by the police to be the perps themselves: the words "you can tell the good guys with a gun from the bad guys with a gun" trip lightly and easily from the keyboard but aren't quite so simply applied in real-life situations

How many people were shot by the police or others having been mistaken for the bad guys?

How many?

 

[Rob_BW]

Yes. The police/ SWAT team. As I've said, no objection with them being armed. No armed civilians were responsible for stopping the shooter

So unless the rate of armed citizens stooping crimes is 100%, it's mythical and it's not worth it?


2007 Colorado YWAM and New Life shootings - Wikipedia

Vaughan Foods beheading incident - Wikipedia

Curtis Culwell Center attack - Wikipedia

Teen Mom Kills Intruder After 911 Call

Officials: Customer at Internet cafe shoots 2 robbers

Pistol-packing Ala. grandmother shoots intruder in bedroom

Phoenix boy, 14, shoots armed intruder while watching three younger siblings

Pregnant mother of two shoots home intruder in chest | Ashtabula Current

 

[TCassidy]

 

[Matt Black]

Ok, so you want a meme duel?

Redirect Notice

 

[TCassidy]

 

[Matt Black]

How many people were shot by the police or others having been mistaken for the bad guys?

How many?

Not the point: the fear was the inability to distinguish a good shooter and a bad one. There were no civilian good shooters and none were shot by the police by mistake

 

[Matt Black]

You should welcome the perspective. It's based on facts, not ignorance, like your anti gun screed.

Then start your own thread

 

[TCassidy]

There were no civilian good shooters and none were shot by the police by mistake

Exactly. So your point is moot.

 

[Matt Black]

Because you haven't even grasped the point being made: suppose the armed people in the audience had fired back: how long would it have taken it to degenerate into a complete free for all with firearms going off right left and centre even before the police showed up? And when they did, how are they supposed to sort the good guys from the bad? The Vegas PD told armed civilians not to go to the scene for that very fear.

 

[Matt Black]

View attachment 1983

Redirect Notice