Reporter, Cameraman Shot While On-Air

AZ_ said:

I'd feel much safer with the Lord Mar's of the world policing the streets, reminding suicidal gunman that they could potentially get killed if they cross him.

Click to expand...

Suicidal gunman walks into a bar.......

Suicidal gunman walks into a bar full of badasses with guns.....

Too soon?

You get the picture. But you will never admit it.

Lord Mar said:

Suicidal gunman walks into a bar.......

Suicidal gunman walks into a bar full of badasses with guns.....

Too soon?

You get the picture. But you will never admit it.

Click to expand...

Mar, logical fallacies aside, that's clearly not the typical situation. Nor is that the situation in this case. Arming one of the victims, like you suggested, wouldn't have changed the situation.

Can you at least agree, in this specific situation, where no one acknowledged the gunman's presence, that arming one of the three victims would not have made a difference?

AanandM7 said:

Mar, logical fallacies aside, that's clearly not the typical situation. Nor is that the situation in this case. Arming one of the victims, like you suggested, wouldn't have changed the situation.

Can you at least agree, in this specific situation, where no one acknowledged the gunman's presence, that arming one of the three victims would not have made a difference?

Click to expand...

I will absolutely not agree to that.

It would be foolish to do so.

Lord Mar said:

I will absolutely not agree to that.

It would be foolish to do so.

Click to expand...

Put down your Alex Jones podcast and walk away.

Lord Mar said:

I will absolutely not agree to that.

It would be foolish to do so.

Click to expand...

Ok, just so I understand your thinking, I'm going to walk through this scenario step by step.

(1) Gunman is behind cameraman with loaded gun;
(2) There are three people there, none of whom acknowledge that the gunman is actually armed and has a firearm pointed at them;
(3) Gunman opens fire inches from the cameraman and maybe two feet from the two female victims; and
(4) At least 8 shots are made within 3 seconds, at which point all three victims have been hit.

Between steps 1-4, when would an armed victim have prevented the killings? I'm not posing a rhetorical question here; I'm trying to see your side here, because at the moment, I can't see any possible situation that supports your statement.

AanandM7 said:

Ok, just so I understand your thinking, I'm going to walk through this scenario step by step.

(1) Gunman is behind cameraman with loaded gun;
(2) There are three people there, none of whom acknowledge that the gunman is actually armed and has a firearm pointed at them;
(3) Gunman opens fire inches from the cameraman and maybe two feet from the two female victims; and
(4) At least 8 shots are made within 3 seconds, at which point all three victims have been hit.

Between steps 1-4, when would an armed victim have prevented the killings? I'm not posing a rhetorical question here; I'm trying to see your side here, because at the moment, I can't see any possible situation that supports your statement.

Click to expand...

Impossible to know.

Only answer? Give everyone guns and find out.

AanandM7 said:

Ok, just so I understand your thinking, I'm going to walk through this scenario step by step.

(1) Gunman is behind cameraman with loaded gun;
(2) There are three people there, none of whom acknowledge that the gunman is actually armed and has a firearm pointed at them;
(3) Gunman opens fire inches from the cameraman and maybe two feet from the two female victims; and
(4) At least 8 shots are made within 3 seconds, at which point all three victims have been hit.

Between steps 1-4, when would an armed victim have prevented the killings? I'm not posing a rhetorical question here; I'm trying to see your side here, because at the moment, I can't see any possible situation that supports your statement.

Click to expand...

To answer for Mar, an armed and educated citizenry may not have prevented these two deaths, but mitigated or prevented additional deaths had the assailant not chosen to take his own life.

Either way, that's not really the purpose of the Second Amendment.

gourimoko said:

To answer for Mar, an armed and educated citizenry may not have prevented these two deaths, but mitigated or prevented additional deaths had the assailant not chosen to take his own life.

Either way, that's not really the purpose of the Second Amendment.

Click to expand...

True......also the key words here are bolded. We will never know.

gourimoko said:

Should we do this for reporters at Fox News and MSNBC?

Honest question...

Seriously, should we impose competency tests on people wanting to exercise their rights?

Click to expand...

The second amendment, in my opinion, was designed to allow people to protect themselves with guns, specifically against tyranny because there was a legit concern that that might happen at the time the law was put into place. It wasn't designed to protect people who are literally crazy and up and decide they want to kill innocent people.

I'm just saying I don't know why people who exercise their 2nd amendment rights legally would want to continually be lumped in with all these crazy people who get access to guns legally in many cases. Is jumping through an extra hoop in order to help protect innocent people that big of a deal? I think that's a pretty decent compromise rather than complete gun control.

gourimoko said:

To answer for Mar, an armed and educated citizenry may not have prevented these two deaths, but mitigated or prevented additional deaths had the assailant not chosen to take his own life.

Either way, that's not really the purpose of the Second Amendment.

Click to expand...

This is so seldom brought up but very true.

The 2nd amendment is about protecting yourself against your own government in a forceful matter. Something impossible in today's world.

It really wasnt about defending against each other. We were just coming off a forceful separation from a government and the drafters of the bill of rights wanted to protect the right of forming a militia.

I am not arguing against the right to own a gun, but most people that quote the 2nd amendment and its purpose misquote or misunderstand the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

gourimoko said:

To answer for Mar, an armed and educated citizenry may not have prevented these two deaths, but mitigated or prevented additional deaths had the assailant not chosen to take his own life.

Either way, that's not really the purpose of the Second Amendment.

Click to expand...

Gour, I understand that line of thinking, but that's not the argument Mar is making. He's talking about the realm of the three victims and insinuating that arming them would've made the difference; that's why I asked about this specific situation. Although Mar responded to your post, I hope he responds to my post regarding during which step they could've prevented the shooting had they been armed.

AanandM7 said:

Gour, I understand that line of thinking, but that's not the argument Mar is making. He's talking about the realm of the three victims and insinuating that arming them would've made the difference; that's why I asked about this specific situation. Although Mar responded to your post, I hope he responds to my post regarding during which step they could've prevented the shooting had they been armed.

Click to expand...

You saying it wouldn't have made a difference is just about the same as me saying it would have made a difference. It may or may not have and that's the point.

As for steps, that's not up for discussion and is something someone should contemplate on a personal basis. Simply being aware of your surroundings is a start.

spydy13 said:

The second amendment, in my opinion, was designed to allow people to protect themselves with guns, specifically against tyranny because there was a legit concern that that might happen at the time the law was put into place. It wasn't designed to protect people who are literally crazy and up and decide they want to kill innocent people.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But it's impossible to know if someone is crazy, who hasn't been diagnosed as such, before the point of sale. So again, it begs the question, how do you know if someone is crazy before they buy a gun?

spydy13 said:

I'm just saying I don't know why people who exercise their 2nd amendment rights legally would want to continually be lumped in with all these crazy people who get access to guns legally in many cases.

Click to expand...

I don't consider myself lumped in with this guy, and I own quite a few firearms.

spydy13 said:

Is jumping through an extra hoop in order to help protect innocent people that big of a deal?

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

You do understand why though, right?

spydy13 said:

I think that's a pretty decent compromise rather than complete gun control.

Click to expand...

I don't.

We shouldn't be in the habit of surrendering our liberties for modicums of security and safety. This may seem like a very ideological stance, but it isn't just rooted in principle; rather, we too often, as a society, expect government to control our day to day lives.

Murders are going to happen.

Yes, gun control would have likely made these two deaths harder to perform - but it would not have completely prevented the killer from executing his plan. He planned this out for 2 days, with the intent to kill himself. He could've just done a suicide bombing instead, and it would've worked all the same. We can argue about which is easier, or more likely, but it is anything but difficult to strap a bomb to yourself and walk up to someone - just ask anyone living in the Middle East.

My point isn't to suggest that gun control wouldn't prevent gun related crime; of course it would. My point is that murders like this might not be preventable whatsoever; so why should we, as law abiding citizens, voluntarily strip ourselves of our God-given right to protect ourselves?

Lee said:

This is so seldom brought up but very true.

The 2nd amendment is about protecting yourself against your own government in a forceful matter.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Lee said:

Something impossible in today's world.

Click to expand...

This simply isn't true though.

No government in history has lasted forever, and no government in history has been impervious to acts of rebellion.

It's simply not rational to immediately assume that an insurrection in the United States would be instantly doomed to fail. Various circumstances could play out where an armed citizenry and the threat of violence could actually prevent tyranny.

Lee said:

It really wasnt about defending against each other. We were just coming off a forceful separation from a government and the drafters of the bill of rights wanted to protect the right of forming a militia.

I am not arguing against the right to own a gun, but most people that quote the 2nd amendment and its purpose misquote or misunderstand the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Lord Mar said:

Suicidal gunman walks into a bar.......

Suicidal gunman walks into a bar full of badasses with guns.....

Too soon?

You get the picture. But you will never admit it.

Click to expand...

Yes, because the first thing I think when I walk into a bar is "man, I'd sure feel safer if every one of these drunk assholes had a gun."