Scots Taffer on 27/5/2014 at 11:13
Quote Posted by icemann
Just once I'd like to see one of these where the shooter attempts a mass killing, but then the people he chose to target had guns themselves, and so the shooter ends up full of bullets. You'd think for a country where people are fanatical (on the gun lobby end) of the right to bear arms, that not more people would be carrying a pistol or whatever for security reasons.
Give teachers guns = no more school shootings
apparently
Thirith on 27/5/2014 at 11:31
Nah, potential shootings just turn into one of those Mexican Standoffs Quentin Tarantino enjoys so much. Not only would the gunmen be gunned down by other men (and women) with guns before anything bad could happen, but it would also be considerably more badass. Obviously.
DDL on 27/5/2014 at 14:24
In slow motion.
Possibly with doves.
Honestly, this observation
Quote:
Just once I'd like to see one of these where the shooter attempts a mass killing, but then the people he chose to target had guns themselves, and so the shooter ends up full of bullets. You'd think for a country where people are fanatical (on the gun lobby end) of the right to bear arms, that not more people would be carrying a pistol or whatever for security reasons.
Instead nearly no'one but the crazies do, mass shootings result
is more of a testament to human endurance and resilience than anything else. I find it really quite endearing that even in a country (allegedly) all gun-crazy, the actual number of gun-toting peeps is fairly low.
"Aren't you worried about being shot and being unable to defend yourself?"
"Meh. Plus, guns are
heavy, dude."
Plus the observation that "nearly no one but crazy people seem to carry guns" probably just reflects "crazy + guns == news!" rather than anything else.
Pyrian on 27/5/2014 at 15:31
You're far more likely to be shot by a gun owned by yourself or a family member than by anyone else. From a safety standpoint, having a gun (nevermind toting it around loaded and ready everywhere you go) is a ludicrous proposition.
That being said, I'm still waiting for the case where two armed citizens responding to the same event start shooting at each other. C'mon, Texas. I believe in you.
Azaran on 27/5/2014 at 18:36
Well, it happened (
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/05/26/3441640/california-man-allegedly-fired-at-girls-for-refusing-to-have-sex/) again
Quote:
A California man allegedly fired his gun at three women Saturday morning who refused to have sex with him and his friends.
The women, estimated to be between about 18 and 19 years old, had gone to the home of three men late Friday night in the northern California town of Stockton, according to Stockton Police. After the men asked to have sex and the women refused, the men kicked the girls out, Stockton Police Department Public Information Officer Joseph Silva told ThinkProgress. When the women started to leave, multiple shots were fired, but none of the women were injured, Silva said. The women fled the area to a nearby Buffalo Wild Wings, where they called police.
All three girls corroborated the story, according to Silva. The security guard in the building also heard the shots and called the police independently. Silva said eight shell casings were found at the crime scene, but the men cannot be found. He does not know whether the gun was possessed legally.
The suspected gunman is Keith Binder, 21. But police have not yet arrested or charged him, saying the case is still under investigation and Binder has not been located. Two other men were at the scene, but police only know their nicknames: “Little D” and “Little Eggy.”
The incident occurred around 1:45 a.m. Saturday morning — just hours after Elliot Rodger took took seven lives in Santa Barbara, Calfornia, over what he described as retribution for women’s lack of sexual interest in him.
