• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Shooting at an Orlando Gay Night Club

PhDeac said:
How do 10% of the patrons with a gun and 90% of the patrons without guns know who the bad patron with a gun is in a dimly lit night club?

How do they know there's only one bad patron with a gun and when to stop shooting?

How do the police know which guy to shoot carrying a legal AR-15?
Click to expand...

Hint: They don't.

When the Colorado theater shooting happened a co-worker (non LEO) said if he were in the theater, he could've killed the gunman before too many people got hurt.

I asked if he was sure he could take out a gunman dressed in black in a dark room, with flashing projector, innocents running and screaming, while making sure he didn't kill anyone else. He was adamant he could, but I don't believe it.
 
DeaconSig said:
You think in the flashing lights of a nightclub, the good guys are going to be able to see which person is shooting at unarmed people versus which person is shooting at the bad guy?
Click to expand...

I concede that the night club setting is not the best one to make this point. However, from what I have read, the killer went into a bathroom and started killing people in it. In all of the nightclubs that I have ever been to, the bathrooms (mercifully) don't have a dance floor or disco ball. Moreover, not all of these events occur at a night club. There were no flashing lights at Sandy Hook.

Either way, even if friendly fire kills 10x the number of intended victims, 10 < 49.
 
dont people get upset in battle when friendly fire deaths occur? isnt that what happened to pat tillman?
 
Junebug said:
No, I didn't know that.

Obviously, it was very unlucky that the cop was on the losing end of that exchange. If there had been a few more people with guns the odds that the shooter would have been the unlucky one go up dramatically.
Click to expand...

Unlucky? Or just unrealistic to expect one armed dude to be able to stop another
 
MysteryMen said:
Unlucky? Or just unrealistic to expect one armed dude to be able to stop another
Click to expand...

Yes, unlucky. In a 1 on 1 battle, I'd call the odds about even, with a slight edge to the good guy because he has the element of surprise on his side.
 
Last edited:
WakeandBake said:
really? So you are in favor of banning Muslims? this was the best you could do with my argument?
Click to expand...

No, not really, but you've missed the satire of your oversimplification. Move back three spaces.
 
Junebug said:
Yes, unlucky. In a 1 on 1 battle, I'd call the odds about even, with a slight edge to the good guy because he has the element of surprise on his side.
Click to expand...

Surprise? Compared to the bad guy who already surprised people?

And why would a gunman entering an open carry zone be surprised if someone has a gun?
 
PhDeac said:
Surprise? Compared to the bad guy who already surprised people?

And why would a gunman entering an open carry zone be surprised if someone has a gun?
Click to expand...

They have showed a decided preference for gun-free [sic] zones.
 
PhDeac said:
Surprise? Compared to the bad guy who already surprised people?

And why would a gunman entering an open carry zone be surprised if someone has a gun?
Click to expand...

Yes. Bad guy starts shooting random people, focusing on inflicting the most damage. Good guy has element of surprise because bad guy doesn't know which good guy has a gun.

You act like you've never seen the video of the old geezer with a gun in the video poker casino chasing off the two ne'er do wells. He had the element of surprise.
 
Last edited:
I would question the "he was in the closet" story at this point, as well as any other new stories that come out about his past and a potential motive, whatever they may be. The immediate responses are what are usually closest to the truth. Now that the dust is settling and the cash is moving, it's tough to know who is paying who for what angle. Obviously certain groups want the focus to be about Islam/ISIS, and certain groups want the focus to be about mentally ill access to guns. I would pretty much ignore everything from Sunday afternoon forward as bullshit and paid for.
 
jhmd2000 said:
No, not really, but you've missed the satire of your oversimplification. Move back three spaces.
Click to expand...

Im not following. Perhaps its because im on my first cup of coffee and my sense of humor is slow to wake up. But the guy said we couldn't just ban the weapons. I said sure we could, we ban things all the time. Then you talked about banning people, or religion. :noidea:
 
Junebug said:
Yes. Bad guy starts shooting random people, focusing on inflicting the most damage. Good guy has element of surprise because bad guy doesn't know which good guy has a gun.

You act like you've never seen the video of the old geezer with a gun in the video poker casino chasing off the two ne'er do wells. He had the element of surprise.
Click to expand...

hqdefault.jpg
 
I am not arguing for the 'more guns is the solution' but I can pretty much guarantee you that if a some idiot opened fire in a regular Mississippi juke joint, that he would be put down within about a minute or so. He would probably kill a few, but there would be way too many people packing heat in there for him to survive more than a momentary barrage. The idea that trained gun owners would have a difficult time hitting such a large target from a short distance isn't very realistic. That is certainly not the answer on a large scale in my opinion, but in an isolated case I think the odds are very higher that a shooter would not have near the impact in an environment where multiple adults are carrying firearms. In a 1 on 1 situation the edge is slightly to the advantage of the citizen defender, but if 2,3,4 citizens are carrying then it is almost a certainty that the assailant would be put down.
 
Last edited:
Junebug said:
Yes, unlucky. In a 1 on 1 battle, I'd call the odds about even, with a slight edge to the good guy because he has the element of surprise on his side.
Click to expand...

Ok so we've now gone from "we wouldn't be talking about this" to "there's about a 50% chance we'd still be talking about this." Just want to make sure I'm hearing you right?
 
Wrangor said:
I am not arguing for the 'more guns is the solution' but I can pretty much guarantee you that if a some idiot opened fire in a regular Mississippi juke joint, that he would be put down within about a minute or so. He would probably kill a few, but there would be way too many people packing heat in there for him to survive more than a momentary barrage. The idea that trained gun owners would have a difficult time hitting such a large target from a short distance isn't very realistic. That is certainly not the answer on a large scale in my opinion, but in an isolated case I think the odds are very higher that a shooter would have near the impact in an environment where multiple adults are carrying firearms. In a 1 on 1 situation the edge is slightly to the advantage of the citizen defender, but if 2,3,4 citizens are carrying then it is almost a certainty that the assailant would be put down.
Click to expand...

Truth. We can debate whether there are other bad consequences or whether we want this as a society, but we should at least be honest about the fact that good guys with a gun are going to stop bad guys with a gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top