Random Thought Thread

Lorien said:
explain?
Click to expand...

Wood5045 said:
It looks like he's talking about a mass stabbing that left 10 dead and 15 wounded in Saskatchewan. So sad.
Click to expand...

Very tragic. But it wasn't a 'mass stabbing'. To keep things honest, there were 13 different locations, with the attackers targetting their victims. It's not like it happened in one place, like, let's say a school ;( ...
 
Last edited:
CataD said:
Very tragic. But it wasn't a 'mass stabbing'. To keep things honest, there were 13 different locations, with the attackers targetting their victims. It's not like it happened in one place, like, let's say a school ;( ...
Click to expand...
I'm having a hard time finding the bright side of this equation...

Regardless of how many venues there are...x number of victims is still x number of victims. (So not a mass stabbing but a rampage?)

Must be the new math.
 
Blues said:
I'm having a hard time finding the bright side of this equation...

Regardless of how many venues there are...x number of victims is still x number of victims. (So not a mass stabbing but a rampage?)

Must be the new math.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but where did I write that there's a bright side to it?

It's a very tragic and sad event, and I was just correcting a statement. This event was brought up in this thread by someone that compared it to a mass massacre in another country, where there are calls for the control of the weapons used in said mass massacre.

It's a false analogy and a talking point of political pundits.
 
CataD said:
I'm sorry, but where did I write that there's a bright side to it?

It's a very tragic and sad event, and I was just correcting a statement. This event was brought up in this thread by someone that compared it to a mass massacre in another country, where there are calls for the control of the weapons used in said mass massacre.

It's a false analogy and a talking point of political pundits.
Click to expand...
I thought it was a little weird to bring up the inevitability of more knife legislation being invoked because of this event. I don't think that's necessarily the way it works, but I'm not an expert.
Although it has happened wrt firearms in other places, like Australia where the response to a mass shooting was to create legislation greatly diminishing the ability of people to retain and/or procure firearms. It did work there, the tangible result being a huge reduction in suicides and bullet hole ridden bodies.

I couldn't help thinking of how much worse this particular event could have been, had the perps been armed with rifles and/or handguns- both of which are extremely difficult for people, (especially) with criminal records to acquire here.
 
Lorien said:
I thought it was a little weird to bring up the inevitability of more knife legislation being invoked because of this event. I don't think that's necessarily the way it works, but I'm not an expert.
Although it has happened wrt firearms in other places, like Australia where the response to a mass shooting was to create legislation greatly diminishing the ability of people to retain and/or procure firearms. It did work there, the tangible result being a huge reduction in suicides and bullet hole ridden bodies.

I couldn't help thinking of how much worse this particular event could have been, had the perps been armed with rifles and/or handguns- both of which are extremely difficult for people, (especially) with criminal records to acquire here.
Click to expand...
Man, I was thinking the opposite actually. That if more people were armed they could have prevented these knuckleheads from getting to so many people.

Pretty sad and tragic situation overall. I wish people were not so violent to each other.
 
It's funny how you dont hear relatively anything about good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns.

They'll blow the roof off of the bad guys with guns not being stopped but by police 45+ minutes later. The mall this summer? blip on the radar.

I'm certainly unlucky that all of my firearms and ammo were lost in a boating accident.
 
CataD said:
I'm sorry, but where did I write that there's a bright side to it?

It's a very tragic and sad event, and I was just correcting a statement. This event was brought up in this thread by someone that compared it to a mass massacre in another country, where there are calls for the control of the weapons used in said mass massacre.

It's a false analogy and a talking point of political pundits.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry if my post gave offense, C CataD

My point was only that it doesn't matter if you call it a mass killing, (based upon the numbers), or a rampage, (based upon what took place and the numbers)...as in the end, the same number of souls were lost.

Terms are used loosely these days, just look at gender and identity politics, and pronouns etc, but in the end whether you call a dog a dog, or call it a cat or a chicken, it is what it is...and the folks who will try to shoehorn the matter into a political quagmire for their own particular motive will attempt to do so.

It is a tragedy by any measure...and I agree with you that those who try to use these events for their political purposes are often misguided on various levels.

In any case, if you thought I was going after you, I apologize. My thought was that it sucked just as bad regardless of what it was called.

I am very pro 2A for the record.
 
MolokaiRider said:
Man, I was thinking the opposite actually. That if more people were armed they could have prevented these knuckleheads from getting to so many people.

Pretty sad and tragic situation overall. I wish people were not so violent to each other.
Click to expand...
unfortunately, things rarely work out that way. If it were the case, there'd be way less gun violence in less restrictive places, but according to the numbers the opposite seems to be the way it is
I'm not planting a flag here, it's just the way I see it
 
Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark all have high firearm ownership and low deaths from firearms. Even Canada has 2 million firearms for 35 million citizens.

Chicago, LA, and NY have some of the most restrictive firearm laws in the US and yet they have exceedingly high rates of firearm use. I believe criminals prefer unarmed victims.

I wish it was acknowledge that firearms will always be in Canada regardless of any ban. We can not stop drugs. We cannot stop illegal migrants. We will not stop firearm trafficking. Australia may have low firearm usage, but they have a huge fentanyl problem. To me, this means there is a greater market in narcotics than firearms. Why would anyone risk smuggling in undesirable wares?


I will always advocate for good people to have the ability to carry a firearm. We trust volunteer first responders, volunteer fire departments, but we balk at volunteer armed defenders? Bah.
 
Lorien said:
unfortunately, things rarely work out that way. If it were the case, there'd be way less gun violence in less restrictive places, but according to the numbers the opposite seems to be the way it is
I'm not planting a flag here, it's just the way I see it
Click to expand...
There are very few reliable sources for the "numbers"...as several reports have been proven unreliable based upon faulty statistics and methodologies over the years. I find the lack of factual and properly vetted information disappointing, but it is what it is.

Feelings and opinions without supporting data and evidence are a lot less convincing, imho. Of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion on the matter, regardless.
 
Blues Blues in your professional opinion, does open carry make the carrier a greater target in the event of a robbery or does it deter a robbery altogether?

I recently had this discussion. I am of the opinion that this follows "survivor bias" where we would have the numbers of all robberies that involved an open carry individual, but we would not have any numbers on how many were prevented since that is unreportable, if that makes sense?
 
benchrest308 said:
Blues Blues in your professional opinion, does open carry make the carrier a greater target in the event of a robbery or does it deter a robbery altogether?

I recently had this discussion. I am of the opinion that this follows "survivor bias" where we would have the numbers of all robberies that involved an open carry individual, but we would not have any numbers on how many were prevented since that is unreportable, if that makes sense?
Click to expand...
I have no statistics...anything I know on the topic is anecdotal, but I do read up on the topic quite a bit on another forum I am very active on which has a lot of LEOs, active and retired, federal, state and local as well as international.

I personally am not a supporter of open carry. I do not mean that I am against the right to open carry, but I think it needlessly puts the carrier at risk of assault...either to get the firearm itself, or to get rid of the threat to the offender up front.

Being aware of one's surroundings is paramount in most circumstances, but it's simply impossible to be in an elevated condition of alertness at all times, and one cannot accurately assess the potential threats from 360 degrees.

Open carry is legal here...but I only carry concealed (because I can). I am not comfortable with open carry for myself as a private citizen. (Even when I was still on the job, I rarely did so in plainclothes, even when my badge was displayed.)
 
benchrest308 said:
Blues Blues in your professional opinion, does open carry make the carrier a greater target in the event of a robbery or does it deter a robbery altogether?

I recently had this discussion. I am of the opinion that this follows "survivor bias" where we would have the numbers of all robberies that involved an open carry individual, but we would not have any numbers on how many were prevented since that is unreportable, if that makes sense?
Click to expand...
if I were a bad guy I'd either scoot out of a situation with an open carrier or target them first.

thinking out loud and I have no intention of committing crimes at any point in the future.
 
benchrest308 said:
Blues Blues in your professional opinion, does open carry make the carrier a greater target in the event of a robbery or does it deter a robbery altogether?

I recently had this discussion. I am of the opinion that this follows "survivor bias" where we would have the numbers of all robberies that involved an open carry individual, but we would not have any numbers on how many were prevented since that is unreportable, if that makes sense?
Click to expand...
Let me return to your question, benchrest308 benchrest308

A lot comes down to why you are carrying to begin with. I don't carry to prevent a crime at the supermarket or local "stop and rob". I am not a deterrent. I carry to protect myself and my family...and other innocent lives if the opportunity would permit. I am a private citizen...not a policeman.

For a crime that simply involved theft or which did not represent a danger to life (or grave bodily harm), I would not involve myself. The equation changes when it becomes life threatening. And even then, great caution must be exercised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top