SkyDekker

I don't even know if the story is true, so certainly don't know for a fact any of the other circumstances around it. You know what, these conversation never go anywhere. Yes, you are right, this is a shining example of how armed civilians stop mass shootings.

How much faster is it disappearing from the news cycle compared to other stories? Do you have any metric, other than your own (biased) perception?

Yet there is a fair bit of medical tourism out of the country, because procedures in other countries are less expensive, same high quality and available on demand. So the question posed above is pretty subjective. Where do you see the balance for the US? Notice I asked for the US, not for a lawyer/doctor couple.

That's great. Have to wonder if maybe his military training helped, or if it was all because of his handgun. Aren't you glad he was there? What if you had been one of those unarmed civilians and he wasn't there? Boy, you ask some stupid questions. Do we even know if he used his handgun during these rescues? I am very happy there are people out there willing to put their lives in danger to help others. In this case I have a strong suspicion that his training was much more valuable to his actions than his firearm. Hence, it is a piss poor example to bring up to support a position that armed citizens will stop mass shootings. (No, that doesn't mean that I think all Americans should be disarmed and the 2nd amendment needs to be repealed. Just to fend off your next stupid question)

That's great. Have to wonder if maybe his military training helped, or if it was all because of his handgun.

which is interesting and all, but only supports the notion that army bases aren't full of armed people. Why is that? Why are people who are mostly trained in the use of weapons not allowed to carry weapons?

I like being legally allowed the option to either. It would silly to pass a law that requires you to get out of your car. Just as silly to pass laws that would disarm you. Especially when you've done nothing to deserve either positions forced on you. My personal choice would be to do both if I have both options - most gun owners would agree despite the stereotypes that so many anti-gun people love to wallow in. I don't disagree for the US. On a grander scale, it would appear that the easy access to firearms has some significant negative effects. Now, I don't think that banning guns in the US is going to accomplish anything positive. I just don't think you guys have created the ideal situation for yourself, not by a long shot. I do believe, and I know I will be derided for this, that the easy acces to guns plays a role in the frequency of violence, and maybe more even the severity of the violence that is happening in the US. I am happy that the country I live in went a different route a long time ago, at least on this issue. Personally, I don't think there is a "solution". This is just the society the US has created for itself. You have to take the bad with the good. Yes you have the freedom to walk around with guns. Yes, I believe that comes with the a price.

Like normis said: In his case that appears to mean bring a gun. In my case it means not putting yourself in a situation where you have to get out of your car in an area that makes you uncomfortable. (I do like the irony of your post after telling me I must not travel a lot)

Like don't run out of gas in the worst part of town? In Canada we learn that lesson a different way: don't run out of gas when stuck in a snow storm. Have you ever left your home town? Say, maybe to travel? How the fuck do you know what "the worst part of town" is when you've never been there. Stay home on your couch, it's safe there. Well, if you leave your couch and travel, you would know that you can generally get a pretty decent sense of what part of town you are in just by observation. Even when travelling through Nicaragua, which I visited this past winter, you can use some of these observational skills to try and help those determinations.

Thank you wendy for being a voice of reason.

Like don't run out of gas in the worst part of town? In Canada we learn that lesson a different way: don't run out of gas when stuck in a snow storm.

Stop taking the fun out of this, they kept making my point for me.

Sometimes it is....

uh, yes, it is. To repeat, in what number system does 250000 resemble 1? It's more than 4 orders of magnitude off. That is stupider than arguing a Sabre 2 190ft and a golf umbrella are equivalently effective parachutes. Yeah, you left out the part wher I don't agree with your math IE narrow definition against broad definiton. In the mean time I'll stay here where our human rights are heavily violated and it is against the law to defend ourselves....yet not so many people get shot and even fewer accidents happen. (notice how I am leaving out your dismissal of the value of a child, just because their parents have made bad decisions)

Right. Oldwoman throws out some hypothetical as to why one would want weapons. I throw out a similar hypothetical why one wouldn't want weapons. One hypothetical is defended, the other is "reasoned" away. Just outlining the bias

Because you are ok with ownership of animals you agree with, but not ok with ownership of animals you don't agree with. One you deem cruel, the other you deem just fine. Then you go further and pars it by animal, or class of animal.

That comment comes across as very hyprocrital with regard to animal ownership for human benefit.

Thankfully I live in a country where it is much harder for nutcases to get their hands on firearms.

Right. Oldwoman throws out some hypothetical as to why one would want weapons. I throw out a similar hypothetical why one wouldn't want weapons. One hypothetical is defended, the other is "reasoned" away. Just outlining the bias

And how many times have you had to shoot somebody to protect yourself or your family?

Am I ever happy I can live in a great city where I don't have to live in constant fear of loonies with guns. Makes you wonder what freedom truly is.

I wonder how many "pro-gun" posters would still own guns after their 10 year old shoots their 8 year old by accident. It's all fun and games hypotheticals until it happens to YOU!

How is this any different from owning a home aquarium, a dog, cat, bird, etc? Why is it ok to kill tuna, but not dolphin. Why is it fine to capture and kill mice, but not capture and keep alive a lion?

There has to be a "reasonable" inquiry. A person can subjectively be in fear that his/her life is in danger. Meanwhile, the circumstances are that no reasonable person thinks that the girl scout was trying to give out a cookie bomb. On the other hand, there may be circumstances where others can reasonably believe that a person's life is at risk when a person is involved in combat but the person is not subjectively afraid. For example, a person raises his fists and goes to pummel a guy, but the victim is Floyd Mayweather who can lick anyone and had no subjective fear. There does have to be an element of subjective and one of objective. And an element of time. And an element of other options available. I find that it is with these later points that there can be a real difference in opinion. Do you have a right to continue a confrontation and have it escalate to deadly force if you had an earlier opportunity to de-escalate or remove yourself from the situation.

Interesting. 10 years or so agaon, when that primary concern was raised the answer tended to be: Fuck the rest of the world and what they think.