Enter your username and password below to sign in to your PewterReport account.
x close
Quote from: spartan on July 20, 2012, 01:01:45 PMQuote from: chace1986 on July 20, 2012, 12:49:08 PMQuote from: acacius on July 20, 2012, 12:38:54 PMQuote from: Legend on July 20, 2012, 12:32:10 PMFair argument and you do make some good points. I guess that is the risk you would be taking. But if your likely going to die if not, your better off just taking the chance. This probably isn't the best example to use for the concealed carry policy, but certainly some of these tragedies could be prevented or less lives taken with it.Yeah, I don't disagree with you overall. I was definitely just talking about this one, specific case not necessarily being a great candidate.Yea, I agree. In this situation...the "vigilantes" could hit a few bystanders instead of the perp.As callous as it may sound, a couple of bystanders is a hell lot less than 12 dead and 50 wounded. The reality is that you would wait or attempt to get a clear shot, and if he points at you then the lane is obviously clear.A) It was a dark theater that was full of smoke. Knowing that he's pointing at you would not necessarily have been as trivial as it sounds. The attacker has a *huge* advantage here in that he has no particular reason to care if his shots go astray, meaning the visibility hampers him far less. (See: the reports of gunfire pentrating into the next theater over.)B) He was wearing body armor, so there's no particular guarantee that a single shot would have taken him out. And if it doesn't, again, huge advantage to the attacker.C) And again, what happens if there's more than one concerned citizen. In this specific scenario where visibility is terrible, you hear another person open fire, how the heck do you know that it's someone trying to stop the madness and not another gunman opening fire on the crowd? I can easily imagine a scenario with multiple gunmen with four weeks of training and no real-world experience where the end result is even worse than what we had.Again, I'm not suggesting that this tragedy is an indictment on the concept of concealed firearms in general. I just think that it's a long way from a given that they would have actually done more good than harm in this situation.
Quote from: chace1986 on July 20, 2012, 12:49:08 PMQuote from: acacius on July 20, 2012, 12:38:54 PMQuote from: Legend on July 20, 2012, 12:32:10 PMFair argument and you do make some good points. I guess that is the risk you would be taking. But if your likely going to die if not, your better off just taking the chance. This probably isn't the best example to use for the concealed carry policy, but certainly some of these tragedies could be prevented or less lives taken with it.Yeah, I don't disagree with you overall. I was definitely just talking about this one, specific case not necessarily being a great candidate.Yea, I agree. In this situation...the "vigilantes" could hit a few bystanders instead of the perp.As callous as it may sound, a couple of bystanders is a hell lot less than 12 dead and 50 wounded. The reality is that you would wait or attempt to get a clear shot, and if he points at you then the lane is obviously clear.
Quote from: acacius on July 20, 2012, 12:38:54 PMQuote from: Legend on July 20, 2012, 12:32:10 PMFair argument and you do make some good points. I guess that is the risk you would be taking. But if your likely going to die if not, your better off just taking the chance. This probably isn't the best example to use for the concealed carry policy, but certainly some of these tragedies could be prevented or less lives taken with it.Yeah, I don't disagree with you overall. I was definitely just talking about this one, specific case not necessarily being a great candidate.Yea, I agree. In this situation...the "vigilantes" could hit a few bystanders instead of the perp.
Quote from: Legend on July 20, 2012, 12:32:10 PMFair argument and you do make some good points. I guess that is the risk you would be taking. But if your likely going to die if not, your better off just taking the chance. This probably isn't the best example to use for the concealed carry policy, but certainly some of these tragedies could be prevented or less lives taken with it.Yeah, I don't disagree with you overall. I was definitely just talking about this one, specific case not necessarily being a great candidate.
Fair argument and you do make some good points. I guess that is the risk you would be taking. But if your likely going to die if not, your better off just taking the chance. This probably isn't the best example to use for the concealed carry policy, but certainly some of these tragedies could be prevented or less lives taken with it.
A couple of guys trying to gang tackle him was still an option. Just a *really* tough one, since it's also all too easy to imagine at least one of them not living to tell about it.
Personally, I often find society's reaction to events like this as disturbing as the shooting. Right now, there are thousands of people scrambling to learn every detail of the shooter's life so they can deliver it to you first. The killer will be celebritized. The victims?
When these types of things happen I make sure to stay away from TV news and news websites. The event is tragic and the inevitable voyeurism is just too much for my taste.
Quote from: Durango 95 on July 20, 2012, 05:02:06 PMWhen these types of things happen I make sure to stay away from TV news and news websites. The event is tragic and the inevitable voyeurism is just too much for my taste.The guy on Fox News seems to be enjoying covering this - he's almost jubilant about it. Sickening.
Actually the problem isnt that Freeman stinks. He is average. He puts up good numbers just often enough to make you think he is better than he is. Bad and great are convincing. But mediocre makes you live with the delusion for too many years. He is just good enough to waste our time and not good enough to get us where we want to go.
what the hell is wrong with people?
I watched this movie last night. I consider it to be a waste of 3 hours. Horribly boring and long movie.