What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

bigblue_dl said:
Blah blah blah, more garbage spewed by one of the worst posters here. Your opinion doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Why is that "more garbage." It seems unofan is interpreting the 2nd Amendment in the context of its original intent.
 
The Sicatoka said:
Hunting, yes. (That deer gets ****ed when you start making jerky out of it while it's grazing.)

However, any good firearms self-defense instructor will tell you the goal is the stop the attack against you. Stop.

That's why the Minnesota guy who stopped the attack (by home invading thieves in his house) was fine to the point that he stopped them; the minute he went to get another weapon to shoot them again it was murder.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you don't aim unless you're willing to shoot what your aiming at, and once you pull that trigger there's a strong likelihood you will seriously injure or kill the target. You don't fire a warning shot because who knows what that stray bullet will hit.

This is like the circular argument the former FBI trainer used in her report in the shooting of the 12 year old kid in Cleveland. Cops aren't trained to shoot to kill. They're just trained to shoot to stop the threat, which only coincidentally happens to be by aiming for the chest where there is a strong likelihood of killing the target by hitting a major organ.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

bigblue_dl said:
Blah blah blah, more garbage spewed by one of the worst posters here. Your opinion doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

For the record, I think unofan is one of the best posters here, despite the unfortunate Dartmouth birth defect.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Kepler said:
For the record, I think unofan is one of the best posters here, despite the unfortunate Dartmouth birth defect.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider someone who accuses 1000's upon 1000's of law abiding citizens of practicing for killing people a high quality poster. Its trolling at best.
 
bigblue_dl said:
I wouldn't consider someone who accuses 1000's upon 1000's of law abiding citizens of practicing for killing people a high quality poster. Its trolling at best.
Click to expand...

But telling someone to go **** themselves is a great form of argument. The highest. You use the best words. Trump like words.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

bigblue_dl said:
Its not surprising. Many people that buy a gun to commit a crime know that they're going to use it for crime when they make the purchase, at that point, they wouldn't want their name attached to it, like it would be in a normal legal purchase. Also if they're repeat offenders, and felons, they wouldn't pass the background check anyway. I would imagine they are mostly black market weapons, stolen or smuggled in through Mexico.
Click to expand...
Too lazy to look but from what I have read we don't need to import guns. Just go over the border to one of the states with lax laws. Pretty sure some of the mexican guns are acquired in the US but again I am too lazy to look for the states.

FlagDUDE08 said:
Murders happen every day. And yet, we don't get this response after each one. So why should this one be any different?
Click to expand...
Gee, I don't know. Maybe because so many of them happened at once? As in more than ever before? That might be a liiiiittle clue to how this is different.
burd said:
Why is that "more garbage." It seems unofan is interpreting the 2nd Amendment in the context of its original intent.
Click to expand...
But it isn't PC to interpret it that way

bigblue_dl said:
I wouldn't consider someone who accuses 1000's upon 1000's of law abiding citizens of practicing for killing people a high quality poster. Its trolling at best.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with everything he said but reading thru the last several pages I see a lot of assumptions that are reactionary interpretation of what he is saying. How you get some of the things you say he is saying out of what he posted is beyond me. You might not agree with what he says but why not refute it with logic rather than deciding he is saying all sorts of crazy things he isn't and then taking your ball to go home?

(OK, here I am being foolish. I know logic is not supposed to enter into things and it is fun when people just 5hit on each other but~ sometimes I would really like to see a logical argument to refute what is being said)
 
bigblue_dl said:
I'm not the one accusing 1000s of people of plotting murder. That is you.
Click to expand...

The average cop, who will shoot thousands upon thousands of bullets at a shooting range over a career, will most likely never have to fire once while on duty.

Despite that, the purpose of their carrying a sidearm isn't for shooting targets at the range.

That's the point I'm trying to get across.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

unofan said:
But telling someone to go **** themselves is a great form of argument. The highest. You use the best words. Trump like words.
Click to expand...

You removed yourself from a conversation with me. I won't engage in a conversation with a person like you. You aren't smart enough for me to listen to what you say.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

unofan said:
Yeah, but you don't aim unless you're willing to shoot what your aiming at, and once you pull that trigger there's a strong likelihood you will seriously injure or kill the target. You don't fire a warning shot because who knows what that stray bullet will hit.
Click to expand...
That's not at all true. I've listened to gun safety experts state, those training people under conceal-carry, that when pulling your gun out of its holster the hope is it will cause people to flee without having to fire your weapon. In more dire circumstances, a warning shot into the ground is the next best thing, and only after that should you aim it at the person threatening you. The absolute last resort is to pull the trigger while aiming at that person, if only to save yourself a whole world of legal headaches. Not all circumstances lend them to that progression of action, but it's what you should hope for, short of the final step.

You're operating under a great deal of false assumptions as to how people who carry a sidearm are trained to use them.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

St. Clown said:
You're operating under a great deal of false assumptions as to how people who carry a sidearm are trained to use them.
Click to expand...

I thought it was an expression so common as to be cliche among gun trainers that "you never pull your weapon unless you are willing to use it," and that pulling your weapon in order to intimidate was "brandishing" and a big no no?
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

St. Clown said:
You're operating under a great deal of false assumptions as to how people who carry a sidearm are trained to use them.
Click to expand...

I think he's operating under a great deal of false assumptions about gun ownership and gun owners.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Kepler said:
I thought it was an expression so common as to be cliche among gun trainers that "you never pull your weapon unless you are willing to use it," and that pulling your weapon in order to intimidate was "brandishing" and a big no no?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a big no no to brandish a weapon because you're neighbor keeps sunbathing nude in the middle of his yard.

If someone is coming at you with a knife, I feel like brandishing a weapon is probably appropriate.
 
St. Clown said:
That's not at all true. I've listened to gun safety experts state, those training people under conceal-carry, that when pulling your gun out of its holster the hope is it will cause people to flee without having to fire your weapon. In more dire circumstances, a warning shot into the ground is the next best thing, and only after that should you aim it at the person threatening you. The absolute last resort is to pull the trigger while aiming at that person, if only to save yourself a whole world of legal headaches. Not all circumstances lend them to that progression of action, but it's what you should hope for, short of the final step.

You're operating under a great deal of false assumptions as to how people who carry a sidearm are trained to use them.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that once you aim you have to fire, but like Kepler said, it's a maxim that you don't aim at something unless you're willing to fire.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Kepler said:
I thought it was an expression so common as to be cliche among gun trainers that "you never pull your weapon unless you are willing to use it," and that pulling your weapon in order to intimidate was "brandishing" and a big no no?
Click to expand...

Willing to use it, and wanting to/actually doing it are 2 different things. If you pull the gun, you have to be willing to use it, but that doesn't mean it still isn't the last resort.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top