• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

At least 8 Dead in Indianapolis FEDEX Facility Shooting


i don't think the shooter(s) were of the light skin variety here. . .

another shooting. . . strange?
 
I have a CCW and licensed to conceal carry. But my employer has a policy against firearms in the office. I am sure it is commonplace, and most people wouldn't put their employment in jeopardy. Guaranteed that was the case at FedEx.
I did. I carried my pistol in my backpack at all times. I had to work in a building where there was a call center that handled loans and repos for farm equipment. This is in a very rural area and many of those that called in were local farmers. "Stealing" a man's ability to provide for his family drives a man to do desperate deeds. I wasn't going to be a statistic. Had I needed to use force, I was prepared to lose my job.
 
Yeah, a lot of good that's done. What mass shooting event have 'good guys with a gun' resolved, where they intervened and saved lives? Maybe a handful over the past few decades? Strange as it may be, 'good guys with a gun' were nowhere to be found at any of the major mass shooting events, be they in malls, schools, stores, etc.

President Biden is 100% right, it's time to end to this national carnage. The country has turned into a warzone, and yes, that includes the inner cities. Pure insanity.
it's impossible to state what a good guy with a gun has prevented.
do you think criminals will log into a website and say "yeah, i had been planning to rob this dude, but saw he had a gun and decided to go sleep instead"

you're too willfully naive to understand anything outside what CNN wants you to parrot and believe.
 
it's impossible to state what a good guy with a gun has prevented.
do you think criminals will log into a website and say "yeah, i had been planning to rob this dude, but saw he had a gun and decided to go sleep instead"

you're too willfully naive to understand anything outside what CNN wants you to parrot and believe.
NRA magazines publish a column every month called The Armed Citizen. It showcases good guys with guns stopping crimes and sometimes those crimes would have turned into mass shootings.
 
LOL, you don't have many friends, do you? Go ahead and have a little hissy fit when you're called out.

Utterly hilarious how completely unaware you are. You are the most weasely whiner on this forum. When confronted with facts, you immediately launch into some asinine ad hominem attack. "Oooh, Trumpists, conspiracy theorists." You are too stupid to realize what an utter jackass fool you are. You are perhaps the only person in the universe still sucking on the Russia! Russia! Russia! hoax.

I'll let you take a deep dive down your own rabbit hole, trying to argue semi-automatic weapons don't play a decisive role in high-casualty, mass shooting events.

So you want to ban semi-automatic weapons - all of them? If not, then who cares if you and your ideological brethren pool their window saliva and ban one type of semi-automatic firearm?
 

Good Guy With Gun Stops Potential Attack At Walmart After Man Shows Up With Rifle, Body Armor​



Gun Effectiveness​

I checked online and found some fascinating numbers. A good website with footnotes and references to authoritative sources is GunFacts.info. There I learned the following:
  • Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
  • Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
  • 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
  • Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
  • Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.
If you doubt the objectivity of the site above, it’s worth pointing out that the Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be even higher—as many as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day. Another excellent source of information on this topic (and many more current issues) is the Gun Control page at JustFacts.org. (Full disclosure: I serve on the board of directors of JustFacts because I believe in the organization’s objectiveness, accuracy, and integrity.)

Defensive Gun Use

In “Defensive Gun Use is More Than Shooting Bad Guys,” James Agresti, founder and president of JustFacts, provided overwhelming evidence from multiple sources showing that defensive gun use is more common and effective than anti-gun fanatics like The New York Times suggest or will admit. Agresti says that “people who use a gun for defense rarely harm (much less kill) criminals. This is because criminals often back off when they discover their targets are armed.”

John Lott, author of the book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, another outstanding source for info on this subject. He writes:

By 66 percent to 32 percent, economists and criminologists answer that gun-free zones are “more likely to attract criminals than they are to deter them.” A 60 percent to 40 percent margin thinks that guns in the home do not increase suicides. And a 62 percent to 35 percent spread says that guns are used in self-defense to stop crime more often than in the commission of crime.

This may explain why even The New York Times hasn’t yet put a billboard up by its offices that screams, “This is a Gun-Free Zone. There are No Guns Here.”

If we can just confiscate the estimated 350 million guns in the country, you might ask, then won’t we eliminate the offensive use of firearms, so we won’t need any of those many defensive uses? Good luck with that. Is there any reason to believe that such a war on guns would be any more successful than the government’s war on drugs? Even a fifth-grader could tell you that it would be largely the innocent who would be disarmed. Criminals would have no problem keeping their guns or getting replacements on a thriving black market.


Sorry to ruin your imbecilic, simpleton notions with facts, Decaf. Why don't you run back to your "insurrectionist hidey-hole safe room" and obsessively read opinion articles from the Huffington Post to confirm just how mean Trump is.
 
In other words, people who use a gun for defense rarely harm (much less kill) criminals. This is because criminals often back off when they discover their targets are armed. A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons across the U.S. found that 40% of them had decided not to commit a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun.”

Contrary to Kristof’s deceitful claim, a range of credible data suggests that civilians use guns to stop violence more than 100,000 times per year.

For instance, the above-cited 1995 paper was based on a survey of 4,977 households, which found that at least 0.5% of households over the previous five years had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.” Applied to the U.S. population using standard scientific methods, this amounts to at least 162,000 saved lives per year, excluding all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”

Since this data is from the 1990s and is based on people’s subjective views of what would have happened if they did not use a gun, it should be taken with a grain of salt. However, the same survey found that the number of people who used a gun for self-defense was about six times greater than the number who said that using the gun “almost certainly” saved a life. This amounts to at least 1,029,615 defensive gun uses per year, including those in which lives were saved and those of lesser consequence.

Notably, anti-gun criminologist Marvin E. Wolfgang praised this study, which was conducted by pro-gun researchers Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. In the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Wolfgang wrote:

  • “I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country.”
  • “Nonetheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it.”
  • “The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.”
Other credible studies provide evidence that defensive gun uses are much more common than Kristof leads his readers to believe.

Anti-gun researcher David McDowall and others conducted a major survey of defensive gun use that was published by the Journal of Quantitative Criminology in 2000. The authors did not take their survey results to their logical conclusions by using the common practice of weighting them to determine what the results would be for a nationally representative survey. But when one does this, the results imply that U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 990,000 times per year. This figure accounts only for “clear” cases of defensive gun use and is based upon a weighting calculation designed to minimize defensive gun uses.

Similarly, a 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.

In 2013, President Obama ordered the Department of Health and Human Services and CDC to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.” In response, the CDC asked the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council to “convene a committee of experts to develop a potential research agenda focusing on the public health aspects of firearm-related violence….” This committee studied the issue of defensive gun use and reported:
  • “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed….”
  • “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million….”
  • Some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey,” but this “estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”
  • “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies….”


The data are readily available, but Decaf is just too dumb and lazy to check his preconceived notions.
 
At the End of the article.

"An independent study commissioned by Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) found that the 1994 Clinton assault weapons ban did not reduce violence, and a recent report from CNN noted that changes to background check regulations would not have stopped the tragedy."

No ****
 
Decaf running inquiries on Media Matters, desperately searching for any fact - ANY fact - to respond to the articles I posted, citing numerous published studies showing that gun owners use their firearms to prevent thousands of crimes per year.

THOUSANDS. OF. CRIMES. PER. YEAR.
 
Decaf running inquiries on Media Matters, desperately searching for any fact - ANY fact - to respond to the articles I posted, citing numerous published studies showing that gun owners use their firearms to prevent thousands of crimes per year.

Lol, your panties are still in a bunch since I wrote weeks ago your law office must be in a strip mall somewhere. Dude, I was just kidding, get over it.

We're talking about high-casualty mass shootings. How many of those have been cut short because heroic citizens - ie good guys with a gun - put an end to it? Say over the last two decades or so. Maybe a handful?

And the whole argument is moot to begin with, since you're just spinning in circles, arguing with yourself. I think decent, law abiding folks should be armed and carry however they please.

Keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and lunatics. If it makes the process of getting a weapon a bit lengthier and more involved on the admin side & slows down the process a bit, so be it. I'd take another step and limit access to semi-automatic weapons, with even tighter requirements. Again, if you're a 'good guy with a gun' type, a responsible gun owner, you'd have no problem meeting the requirements.

Any rational gun owner & gun rights advocate who cherishes the lives of their fellow citizens would concur. But no, you guys ******* lose your minds at the slightest mention of tightening up gun laws.

Get over yourselves, nobody wants to take your guns. Join the rest of civilized society and help end - or at least reduce - the mass shooting epidemic that's costing the lives of so many innocent civilians.
 
Decaf, you stupid, lazy moron. I posted a goddamn article where a firefighter with concealed carry noticed a guy in camo with a rifle heading into a Walmart and stopped him.
 
Decaf, you stupid, lazy moron. I posted a goddamn article where a firefighter with concealed carry noticed a guy in camo with a rifle heading into a Walmart and stopped him.

You probably don't realize how dumb you look throwing out childish monikers and insults in every single post you write on this board. Indy gets away with it, cause he's a buffoon, a circus clown. At least be selective, take a break once in a while from your childish tantrums and at least give off the semblence of being a grown adult. Your constant, heightened level of outrage doesn't bode well for an esteemed professional such as yourself. Or don't. If you don't mind looking like a friggin' maniac, knock yourself out.
 
Yeah, this pretty much sums up why people are so fed up with the GOP:

American Schedule:

MONDAY: mass shooting
TUESDAY: mass shooting
WEDNESDAY: mass shooting
THURSDAY: mass shooting
FRIDAY: mass shooting
SATURDAY: mass shooting
SUNDAY: mass shooting

REPUBLICANS: we gotta do something about trans people playing sports
 
How is this a Republican issue? They can keep the guns out of the Dem run cities and states? How are the GOP to stop the killing of a 7 y.o. at Wendy's in Shreveport or in Chicago that shootings are a "normal" occurance every damn day? More laws, take guns away, blah, blah, blah. . . who taking the guns away from the gang bangers????
The Dems have been in office for how many months and they have had how many mass shootings on their watch, already? On their watch! There were mass shootings during the Trump presidency over a four year span, but nothing like what we've seen the first four months of this admin. Shouldn't fingers be pointing directly to THEM?
 
Yeah, this pretty much sums up why people are so fed up with the GOP:
and again, if that is the case, and one you consistently make here, why would you want people to be defenseless?
 
and again, if that is the case, and one you consistently make here, why would you want people to be defenseless?

That would follow only if the person demanding we be defenseless is a stupid, lazy moron.

Wait a minute ...
 
That would follow only if the person demanding we be defenseless is a stupid, lazy moron

and again, if that is the case, and one you consistently make here, why would you want people to be defenseless?

Back to remedial class you two. And I mean now, both of you. Get your stuff and get moving. Until you learn basic reading comprehension skills, you have no place posting on a public message board.

I think decent, law abiding folks should be armed and carry however they please.
 
Decaf, you don't believe law-abiding citizens should be armed and "carry however they please." That is a lie. Jesus Christ, talk about reading comprehension.

Don't you support bans on "assault weapons" (which none of your flaccid ilk can define without including a collapsible stock for some ******* reason)?

Don't you support limits on magazine capacity (i.e., the amount of rounds held by off-the-shelf semi-automatic handguns)?

Didn't you say that the problem in mass shootings is semi-automatic weapons, and then fail to answer my question as to whether or not that means a ban on ALL semi-automatic weapons?

Decaf, the problem is not that you are a dumb, lazy, unemployed barista; the problem is that you are a dumb, lazy, unemployed barista who thinks he's smart.
 
Back to remedial class you two. And I mean now, both of you. Get your stuff and get moving. Until you learn basic reading comprehension skills, you have no place posting on a public message board.
**** off. you want to take guns away from the populace in general.
you neglect to consider taking guns from the criminals. i assume you believe that we do not know who the criminals are until after a crime is committed. is that correct?
 
Top