How Do You Stop a Crazed Gunman?

[Crazyirishman]

You kick him in the balls from behind. When he drops to the ground you keep kicking the balls until the police show up.

What if he's crazed because he has no balls?

-rd

Simple: put it in his butt

[Symmetry]

Mine was better.

[Phatscotty]

All I have been hearing from a lot of people is that nobody should be able to shoot a person who is committing a massacre. What are some other ways?

Its not that shooting is a bad idea, its that most people who have guns are not capable of doing it. Being well trained in gun use takes a lot more time than most people have. Also, if you live in an area with a lot of guns, then that just gets exacerbated. The talent needed to take out a really trained person is even greater than that needed to take out an untrained person.

The result, in practical terms, is a lot more harm to a lot more people.

This camp shooting was tragic, but giving everyone guns would not have prevented it.

I don't get it. Shooting a pistol isn't hard, you line up the sights and pull the trigger. My first time at the range of my first clip about half my shots where an instant fatality on the target, and the others all were on the target. Do you mean that it is too mentally challenging? You might feel differently after someone starts gunning people down with an automatic.

It means her political position will not allow her to admit the truth, even when it comes to saving innocent lives.

A crazed gunman starts shooting. Only 2 things can happen here. Either the gunman shoots and kills until he is out of bullets, or a citizen with a gun puts a bullet in the gunman's head.

[Gypsys Kiss]

All I have been hearing from a lot of people is that nobody should be able to shoot a person who is committing a massacre. What are some other ways?

Its not that shooting is a bad idea, its that most people who have guns are not capable of doing it. Being well trained in gun use takes a lot more time than most people have. Also, if you live in an area with a lot of guns, then that just gets exacerbated. The talent needed to take out a really trained person is even greater than that needed to take out an untrained person.

The result, in practical terms, is a lot more harm to a lot more people.

This camp shooting was tragic, but giving everyone guns would not have prevented it.

I don't get it. Shooting a pistol isn't hard, you line up the sights and pull the trigger. My first time at the range of my first clip about half my shots where an instant fatality on the target, and the others all were on the target. Do you mean that it is too mentally challenging? You might feel differently after someone starts gunning people down with an automatic.

It means her political position will not allow her to admit the truth, even when it comes to saving innocent lives.

A crazed gunman starts shooting. Only 2 things can happen here. Either the gunman shoots and kills until he is out of bullets, or a citizen with a gun puts a bullet in the gunman's head.

Would you care to explain Virginia Tech, then?

[Phatscotty]

If you could be more specific about what you are talking about, I will take a crack at it.

[comic boy]

80 people are dead , mostly children , yet the OP still feels it right and proper to Troll.....what a nasty, cowardly cunt he is

[safariguy5]

All I have been hearing from a lot of people is that nobody should be able to shoot a person who is committing a massacre. What are some other ways?

Its not that shooting is a bad idea, its that most people who have guns are not capable of doing it. Being well trained in gun use takes a lot more time than most people have. Also, if you live in an area with a lot of guns, then that just gets exacerbated. The talent needed to take out a really trained person is even greater than that needed to take out an untrained person.

The result, in practical terms, is a lot more harm to a lot more people.

This camp shooting was tragic, but giving everyone guns would not have prevented it.

I don't get it. Shooting a pistol isn't hard, you line up the sights and pull the trigger. My first time at the range of my first clip about half my shots where an instant fatality on the target, and the others all were on the target. Do you mean that it is too mentally challenging? You might feel differently after someone starts gunning people down with an automatic.

It means her political position will not allow her to admit the truth, even when it comes to saving innocent lives.

A crazed gunman starts shooting. Only 2 things can happen here. Either the gunman shoots and kills until he is out of bullets, or a citizen with a gun puts a bullet in the gunman's head.

Didn't the arizona shooting result in the gunman getting tackled, disarmed, and turned over to police alive? I mean, that's what I'd do.

[GreecePwns]

All I have been hearing from a lot of people is that nobody should be able to shoot a person who is committing a massacre. What are some other ways?

Its not that shooting is a bad idea, its that most people who have guns are not capable of doing it. Being well trained in gun use takes a lot more time than most people have. Also, if you live in an area with a lot of guns, then that just gets exacerbated. The talent needed to take out a really trained person is even greater than that needed to take out an untrained person.

The result, in practical terms, is a lot more harm to a lot more people.

This camp shooting was tragic, but giving everyone guns would not have prevented it.

I don't get it. Shooting a pistol isn't hard, you line up the sights and pull the trigger. My first time at the range of my first clip about half my shots where an instant fatality on the target, and the others all were on the target. Do you mean that it is too mentally challenging? You might feel differently after someone starts gunning people down with an automatic.

It means her political position will not allow her to admit the truth, even when it comes to saving innocent lives.

A crazed gunman starts shooting. Only 2 things can happen here. Either the gunman shoots and kills until he is out of bullets, or a citizen with a gun puts a bullet in the gunman's head.

Didn't the arizona shooting result in the gunman getting tackled, disarmed, and turned over to police alive? I mean, that's what I'd do.

And weren't there other armed civilians at the scene who chose not to grab their firearm at the moment it was needed the most?

[Phatscotty]

All I have been hearing from a lot of people is that nobody should be able to shoot a person who is committing a massacre. What are some other ways?

Its not that shooting is a bad idea, its that most people who have guns are not capable of doing it. Being well trained in gun use takes a lot more time than most people have. Also, if you live in an area with a lot of guns, then that just gets exacerbated. The talent needed to take out a really trained person is even greater than that needed to take out an untrained person.

The result, in practical terms, is a lot more harm to a lot more people.

This camp shooting was tragic, but giving everyone guns would not have prevented it.

I don't get it. Shooting a pistol isn't hard, you line up the sights and pull the trigger. My first time at the range of my first clip about half my shots where an instant fatality on the target, and the others all were on the target. Do you mean that it is too mentally challenging? You might feel differently after someone starts gunning people down with an automatic.

It means her political position will not allow her to admit the truth, even when it comes to saving innocent lives.

A crazed gunman starts shooting. Only 2 things can happen here. Either the gunman shoots and kills until he is out of bullets, or a citizen with a gun puts a bullet in the gunman's head.

Didn't the arizona shooting result in the gunman getting tackled, disarmed, and turned over to police alive? I mean, that's what I'd do.

You are very correct sir. He got tackled while reloading....because his gun was out of bullets....

You would charge a guy with a gun? I get the feeling that a lot of people in the past have charged the shooter unarmed. I have to go out on a limb here and say when you try to tackle a guy with a gun, you usually end up being one of the body count.

you basically agree, you have to wait for the guy to stop shooting.

[Phatscotty]

Its not that shooting is a bad idea, its that most people who have guns are not capable of doing it. Being well trained in gun use takes a lot more time than most people have. Also, if you live in an area with a lot of guns, then that just gets exacerbated. The talent needed to take out a really trained person is even greater than that needed to take out an untrained person.

The result, in practical terms, is a lot more harm to a lot more people.

This camp shooting was tragic, but giving everyone guns would not have prevented it.

I don't get it. Shooting a pistol isn't hard, you line up the sights and pull the trigger. My first time at the range of my first clip about half my shots where an instant fatality on the target, and the others all were on the target. Do you mean that it is too mentally challenging? You might feel differently after someone starts gunning people down with an automatic.

It means her political position will not allow her to admit the truth, even when it comes to saving innocent lives.

A crazed gunman starts shooting. Only 2 things can happen here. Either the gunman shoots and kills until he is out of bullets, or a citizen with a gun puts a bullet in the gunman's head.

Didn't the arizona shooting result in the gunman getting tackled, disarmed, and turned over to police alive? I mean, that's what I'd do.

And weren't there other armed civilians at the scene who chose not to grab their firearm at the moment it was needed the most?

sources? Will add, my statement of an armed citizen putting a bullet in the gunman's head pre-supposes the individual choosing to pull out their gun and stop the massacre.

It's not a 100% prevention system, as you guys damn well know. It's an increaser of the odds of survival. Someone else put it well "variables".

[Gypsys Kiss]

If you could be more specific about what you are talking about, I will take a crack at it.

There was one gunman, two hand guns and two separate attacks two hours apart. The 32 victims(not including the 25 wounded) ages ranged from 18 to 76. According to your argument at least one person on the campus should have been packing and therefore should have been able to take the perpetrator down, maybe not before the first two shootings, but certainly before the more devastating attack two hours later.

Granted, this was a school but the Norwegian attack was mainly on children attending a youth meeting on an island.....which of these should have been packing?

I dont want to get into an argument about which is worse, both were unnecessary and tragic, but your argument doesn't hold water and mine is as leaky as a sieve. The only way to stop this kind of atrocity is to eliminate guns altogether and we both know that aint going to happen.

[Phatscotty]

If you could be more specific about what you are talking about, I will take a crack at it.

There was one gunman, two hand guns and two separate attacks two hours apart. The 32 victims(not including the 25 wounded) ages ranged from 18 to 76. According to your argument at least one person on the campus should have been packing and therefore should have been able to take the perpetrator down, maybe not before the first two shootings, but certainly before the more devastating attack two hours later.

Granted, this was a school but the Norwegian attack was mainly on children attending a youth meeting on an island.....which of these should have been packing?

I dont want to get into an argument about which is worse, both were unnecessary and tragic, but your argument doesn't hold water and mine is as leaky as a sieve. The only way to stop this kind of atrocity is to eliminate guns altogether and we both know that aint going to happen.

If someone with a gun is around, its more likely less people will die. It's not a one size fits all.

I could also say it this way. If every individual protected themselves, this would happen less as well as deter would-be gunman because they might think about doing a massacre if they know everyone is packing heat.

Everyone packing heat = massacre fail
half the people packing heat = great chance massacre will fail
25% of people packing heat = likely massacre will fail
0% packing heat = very good chance massacre will succeed

[PLAYER57832]

The question isn't whether a gun can stop a gunman. The question is who should have that gun, who needs to have it to succeed.. are the chances better when random citizens with varied amounts of training have guns OR is it better when a few, trained individuals have them? For this specific type situation -- that is, an isolated location, a guy with a machine gun, etc... it is hard to say. That is, it is absolutely not certain a gun would have helped (i am thinking back to some testimony in the Virginia Tech, etc incidents)., though it might have.

Further, given the fact that most of these victims were kids.. It is even more doubtful any would have been able to use a gun effectively, for a lot of reasons. (and yes, I am quite aware that kids can be excellent shots).

In most circumstances, though, which is what laws are geared towards, having a handgun would not help.. they are far more likely to be turned against the owner.

We have a right to bear arms, to form militias, in this country. However, whether it is best for everyone to have a handgun is something entirely different.

[Woodruff]

If you could be more specific about what you are talking about, I will take a crack at it.

There was one gunman, two hand guns and two separate attacks two hours apart. The 32 victims(not including the 25 wounded) ages ranged from 18 to 76. According to your argument at least one person on the campus should have been packing and therefore should have been able to take the perpetrator down, maybe not before the first two shootings, but certainly before the more devastating attack two hours later.

Granted, this was a school but the Norwegian attack was mainly on children attending a youth meeting on an island.....which of these should have been packing?

I dont want to get into an argument about which is worse, both were unnecessary and tragic, but your argument doesn't hold water and mine is as leaky as a sieve. The only way to stop this kind of atrocity is to eliminate guns altogether and we both know that aint going to happen.

If someone with a gun is around, its more likely less people will die. It's not a one size fits all.

I could also say it this way. If every individual protected themselves, this would happen less as well as deter would-be gunman because they might think about doing a massacre if they know everyone is packing heat.

Everyone packing heat = massacre fail
half the people packing heat = great chance massacre will fail
25% of people packing heat = likely massacre will fail
0% packing heat = very good chance massacre will succeed

Your logic is very poor. If everyone is packing heat, it's quite likely that some of those packing heat will die as they mistake one another for the criminal shooter, essentially doing his job for him.

[natty dread]

You know what they say about men who own large firearms...

[Qwert]

well you have several options.
1. If you are armed,you have high chance to stop gunman and to survive
2. If you are not armed, and want to stop gunman,you have high chances to be killed
3. If you are not armed, and try to run away, you have good chances to survive.

------------------
conseder that people in norway campus are not armed, they try option 3, and try to run away and survive, unfortunatly high campus population increase number of dead.Also these kids not trained to stand against any kind of these danger,and in panic,people become imobilised and scared,and these give gunman(who its look well good prepare for these operation)quite easy job to execute.
Im hunter,and im familiar with weapons(hunting weapons), so if im in similar situation, then 3rd option its most accepted,because i dont have licent to carry weapon with me.
Also what i notice,its that people become much brave,when they posses a weapon in hands, but these will not be to much helpfull for these kids in campus,because these gunman its familiar with how these weapons work,and kids dont know that.

[safariguy5]

If you could be more specific about what you are talking about, I will take a crack at it.

There was one gunman, two hand guns and two separate attacks two hours apart. The 32 victims(not including the 25 wounded) ages ranged from 18 to 76. According to your argument at least one person on the campus should have been packing and therefore should have been able to take the perpetrator down, maybe not before the first two shootings, but certainly before the more devastating attack two hours later.

Granted, this was a school but the Norwegian attack was mainly on children attending a youth meeting on an island.....which of these should have been packing?

I dont want to get into an argument about which is worse, both were unnecessary and tragic, but your argument doesn't hold water and mine is as leaky as a sieve. The only way to stop this kind of atrocity is to eliminate guns altogether and we both know that aint going to happen.

If someone with a gun is around, its more likely less people will die. It's not a one size fits all.

I could also say it this way. If every individual protected themselves, this would happen less as well as deter would-be gunman because they might think about doing a massacre if they know everyone is packing heat.

Everyone packing heat = massacre fail
half the people packing heat = great chance massacre will fail
25% of people packing heat = likely massacre will fail
0% packing heat = very good chance massacre will succeed

Sorry, just had to link this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54 ... re=related

[Pedronicus]

Well if I was somewhere and somebody started shooting people, I personally would shoot him. I pack as does my wife, they are to be used as self defense....speech won't work at that point...if you tried to talk him out of it and reminded him that it was a crime, you would probably be the next victim.

Irony is always lost on Americans

[Phatscotty]

Well if I was somewhere and somebody started shooting people, I personally would shoot him. I pack as does my wife, they are to be used as self defense....speech won't work at that point...if you tried to talk him out of it and reminded him that it was a crime, you would probably be the next victim.

Irony is always lost on Americans

Accept he's just making fun of the position "just make it illegal to have guns" it's just as effective to "just make it illegal to kill people"

problem solved

[Woodruff]

If you could be more specific about what you are talking about, I will take a crack at it.

There was one gunman, two hand guns and two separate attacks two hours apart. The 32 victims(not including the 25 wounded) ages ranged from 18 to 76. According to your argument at least one person on the campus should have been packing and therefore should have been able to take the perpetrator down, maybe not before the first two shootings, but certainly before the more devastating attack two hours later.

Granted, this was a school but the Norwegian attack was mainly on children attending a youth meeting on an island.....which of these should have been packing?

I dont want to get into an argument about which is worse, both were unnecessary and tragic, but your argument doesn't hold water and mine is as leaky as a sieve. The only way to stop this kind of atrocity is to eliminate guns altogether and we both know that aint going to happen.

Ha! And you actually thought Phatscotty would "take a crack at it". You're so cute.

[Augustus Maximus]

Don't say that making guns illegal will prevent these sorts of tragedies. Bombs are already illegal everywhere, yet that did not stop the bombings in Madrid, London, New York City, Dublin, etc... If you think that by removing the gun you prevent anything that is a faulty notion. It does make it more difficult, but an individual or group bent on committing theses sorts of acts of violence will find some method or means of inflicting harm.

The firearms ban in England has worked so well at (not) deterring crime that there are now groups that want to ban knives.

[HapSmo19]

All I have been hearing from a lot of people is that nobody should be able to shoot a person who is committing a massacre. What are some other ways?

Its not that shooting is a bad idea, its that most people who have guns are not capable of doing it. Being well trained in gun use takes a lot more time than most people have. Also, if you live in an area with a lot of guns, then that just gets exacerbated. The talent needed to take out a really trained person is even greater than that needed to take out an untrained person.

The result, in practical terms, is a lot more harm to a lot more people.

This camp shooting was tragic, but giving everyone guns would not have prevented it.

I don't get it...

You never will unless you're retarded.

[Woodruff]

All I have been hearing from a lot of people is that nobody should be able to shoot a person who is committing a massacre. What are some other ways?

Its not that shooting is a bad idea, its that most people who have guns are not capable of doing it. Being well trained in gun use takes a lot more time than most people have. Also, if you live in an area with a lot of guns, then that just gets exacerbated. The talent needed to take out a really trained person is even greater than that needed to take out an untrained person.

The result, in practical terms, is a lot more harm to a lot more people.

This camp shooting was tragic, but giving everyone guns would not have prevented it.

I don't get it...

You never will unless you're retarded.

Speaking of retarded, you seem to have conveniently deleted the part where edocsil is equating target practice with a real-life terrorist situation. That's a retarded equation.

[Phatscotty]

Until police response time is 5 seconds or until there is a government person with a gun on every street corner, we are just gonna have to wait until the gunman runs out of bullets.

You stop a crazed gunman by shooting him

[Gypsys Kiss]

Until police response time is 5 seconds or until there is a government person with a gun on every street corner, we are just gonna have to wait until the gunman runs out of bullets.

You stop a crazed gunman by shooting him

You are in a crowded street with 200 like minded individuals, someone pulls a gun, someone else screams "he's got a gun", the gunman fires, 199 people draw their Desert Eagles.......



How many survivors will there be?