Wait a minute! Isn't Arizona a big pro-gun state? Then, why weren't there

[CTyankee]

all these armed citizens there ready to shoot the shooter so he couldn't do all that killing? Why weren't all those "law abiding citizens" able to prevent this mass shooting?

Isn't this whole rationale for the pro-gunners in the first place? That an armed populace will protect us from evildoers with guns? What happened, gunners?

[Duer 157099]

1. Oh... you know the answer

It was a *Democratic* event! Silly.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipoman]

48. The statistics are against this position

Do you have a magic wand capable of uninventing firearms? What is your solution?

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipoman]

121. The US has always been more violent

than some other countries like UK and Canada even when gun laws were very similar. It could be the fact that the US is the largest melting pot on the planet, it could have to do with disparity of economy, the facts simply do not support it having anything to do with gun laws.

After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/percentfirearm.cfm

After peaking in 1993, the number of gun crimes reported to police declined and then stabilized at levels last seen in 1988.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/guncrime.cfm

Yet during this same time, every single year there were literally millions more new guns sold to private citizens and during this time the US went from 4 or 5 states with legal concealed carry to, IIRC, 46 states today.

Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/hmrt.cfm

Nonfatal firearm-related crime has declined since 2000.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalno.cfm

Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/cv2.cfm

Since 1994 violent crime rates have declined, reaching the lowest level ever in 2009.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/viort.cfm

In spite of the fact gun laws have been loosened, several millions more people are carrying concealed guns every day, and there are more, and more guns on the streets every single year.

If the contention is that more guns = more crime, I believe the statistics completely disprove any correlation.


edit...Oh, and I see you offered no solution to remedy the hundreds of millions of guns in the US, even if gun laws were responsible for higher crime rates (which they obviously are not).

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipoman]

147. Oh, I see

it really has nothing to do with reality then, only your fear of inanimate objects which is the issue. People with this attitude have already lost. There was already a push in your direction, it failed miserably, and now it is growing more and more obscure.

[DainBramaged]

157. Guns, cocaine of the ignorant....

[pipoman]

158. Meaningless drivel with no basis in fact

the last gasp in the death of a lost exchange.

[Erose999]

140. Don't underestimate the fatality of knife injuries. I'd almost rather take a bullet to the liver

than a knife blade.

[fishbulb703]

162. Uh, a guy with a gun. nt

[Tunkamerica]

2. apparentally there was one.

and i saw in a post here much earlier that he fired a round. But two elderly men actually tackled the guy.

Imagine if a few more guys had had guns and started firing. No one would know who fired the first shots or who was on what "team".

[JI7]

6. exactly, tha'ts the whole problem with this"if everyone had a gun" crap

and sorry but i don't want to live like that.

[pipoman]

49. Who is asserting this illusive "if everyone had a gun" meme?

Got a link?

[CTyankee]

54. Oh, dear, I've heard this argument for YEARS. Please go to the gun forum for you answer....

[pipoman]

98. I've spent time there for 5 years

and have not one single time heard it. How about a link? It should only take a second.

[Paladin]

124. Universal Arming-Up Is The ONLY "Solution" You Gun Enthusiasts Offer.

You and your movement are against ANYTHING that might prevent a tragedy like this from occurring again. Political assassinations and mass murders are acceptable trade-offs to you, as long as your right to gun ownership remains inviolate. As always,proof of this twisted world view is on display every single day in the DU Guns forum.....

[pipoman]

131. You making false assertins don't make it true..

post the links, if it is so prevalent in the guns forum, it should be simple to demonstrate.

And what solutions are you offering short of violating an enumerated civil liberty?

[Paladin]

143. What Solutions Are YOU Offering?

Your side is the one that's adamantly opposed to doing ANYTHING about violence involving guns in this country. That leaves only one action you can favor---everybody arming-up and hoping for the best. Along with the generally unspoken adjunct to that sickening Law Of The Jungle mindset---that anybody who fails to take armed action and ends up getting killed or injured pretty much deserves what he or she gets.

Jesus, within 24 hours of the shooting, one of your fellow DU Gun Enthusiasts posted a check list of the Congresswoman's votes on gun issues, with an accompanying whine that she wasn't nearly pro-2nd Amendment enough to suit him. Have you people no shame?

[pipoman]

148. Did you read the OP of this thread?

Who is politicizing this sad occurrence?

And again, your asserting a man o'straw don't make it true. In fact it demonstrates how utterly hollow your argument is. You don't care about facts, it is reduced to your pitiful feelings which have been proven void in this very thread.

Still no links to anything resembling a basis for:

"Your side is the one that's adamantly opposed to doing ANYTHING about violence involving guns in this country."

"That leaves only one action you can favor---everybody arming-up and hoping for the best."

"Along with the generally unspoken adjunct to that sickening Law Of The Jungle mindset---that anybody who fails to take armed action and ends up getting killed or injured pretty much deserves what he or she gets."

All completely baseless accusations, meaningless without demonstration of fact.

[Telly Savalas]

167. It's a paraphrase of "an armed society is a polite society"

[EFerrari]

38. That turned out not to be true, per the Pima County Sheriff today. n/t

[valerief]

3. It's Saturday. They were at the shooting range. nt

[Ilsa]

4. "I guess that sweet little 9 year old forgot to pack hers today." nt

[Lint Head]

5. Because conceal any carry is bull shit.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluerum]

7. Rhetorical bullshit. That is a gun nut fantasy. Kill a "goblin".

[The Straight Story]

10. Wait, weren't there government people - DHS, Cops, etc spending billions to stop this?

And don't they have guns/planes/etc and so on? And don't some folks think only bush/cheney/et al should be the only ones allowed to carry guns because you, and other 'lowly citizens' are not to be trusted with them? Where were the govt folks today to protect people? where were they on 9/11?

[CTyankee]

11. Aint' that interestin...why if we had all been armed we coulda prevented

the takeover of the banks on our economy...we coulda kept people from being foreclosed upon...we coulda been a contender...

[CTyankee]

13. Ain't that interesting. Why if they had been armed, we could prevented that from

happening. We coulda prevented the takeover of the banks on our economy...we coulda kept people from being foreclosed upon...we coulda been a contender...

[Odin2005]

12. anti-gun flame bait. unrec.

[CTyankee]

15. Really? Isn't it a good question, Odin? Could you at least respond?

Oh, come on...are you afraid?

[Forkboy]

20. It's actually a damn good question.

[DainBramaged]

27. No my friend, it's about the killer not the tool he used, and the rhetoric

used by the gun fanatics who tell us day after day after day that if everyone was armed like they are, there would be no crime. Well, Arizona is a 25 guns for every person state. Where were the protectors?



I don't see ignored tools either.

[X_Digger]

30. *yawn* straw man. Next? n/t

[pipoman]

56. I'm sure you can link up to these never ending

believers that "if everyone was armed" believers. Yea, I didn't think so.

[fascisthunter]

92. the question is legit

[Cid_B]

14. *yawn*...

Bit ghoulish for my taste...

Isn't there a minimum grieving time before everyone picks up their favorite pet issue? Guess not...

Talk Radio.. Fairness Doctrine.. Gun Control... Palin... etc.. etc.. All guesswork but damn if that isn't the hot button in this scenario.. good eye!

[Zoeisright]

16. Heh - good point! And I see the unrec nuts are out in force.

Can't face the truth, huh people??

[CTyankee]

19. See, I don't really give a rats ass how many unrecs there are...it has no bearing

on what I say...

GIVE UP, UNRECCERS! Nobody gives a crap...

[DainBramaged]

36. ALL OVER DU today, it's pathetic, they can't change what happened.

[Unrepentant Fenian]

17. I was thinking the same thing...

Had this happened in Massachusetts, the right wingers would be claiming that it was the fault of the "Nanny State" and that the end result would have been much different in a "Free State". I wonder how they'll spin this.

[RB TexLa]

18. I carry a gun sometimes, the only person I would defend with my gun is my wife

otherwise it stays put.

[aikoaiko]

21. If you are really interested in dialogue read my response....

No right to carry advocate can claim that all attacks will be prevented. All people (who carry) want is the chance to not be helpless.

Concealed carry failed no more than police open carry at this event.

[CTyankee]

22. So what you are saying is that it is a fail that is bound to happen.

Most people are not going to carry guns, no matter what your philosophy tells you. It just won't happen. So the failure rate of your rationale is MORE likely, not less likely, to happen. And here is the proof.

You are in a hole. Stop digging...

[aikoaiko]

24. I see you are not interested in a dialogue.

I'll stop trying to engage you because the 2nd Amendment protects my right to keep and bear arms even when other people abuse that right.

[CTyankee]

31. I am not talking about your right to keep and bear arms...I am talking about the

talking point that an armed citizenry can prevent bad people from shooting or otherwise harming others. I hear that argument from your side all the time. Well, what about it in this case?

Why can't you just respond to my question, sir?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aikoaiko]

37. the talking point is that an armed citizeny MAY prevent bad people from shooting

No one promised you that citizens carrying arms would prevent all crime. I think you know that.

[CTyankee]

42. But THAT was not the argument. The argument was that if state laws empowered

the citizenry to have arms then it would reduce crime with shootings and we see here a perfect contradiction of your claims...this argument is a fraud. You ought to be red in the face to be arguing it in this forum because the evidence is there for all to see...

[aikoaiko]

44. I'll stop engaging you now because you only want to exploit this violence for political points.

And you should be ashamed.

[pipoman]

62. Hmmm

according to the FBI violent crime in the US has been on a 30 year decline. Every one of those years there have been more, and more guns in private hands. Over that same period we have gone from 3 or 4 states with legal concealed carry to 46 states. Anyone who points to one event and claims a trend actually does need Statistics for Dummies.

[CTyankee]

65. However, this example is exquisite in its perfection.

Here you have the people who peaceably assemble for the right of redress, according to the Constitution, and it is marred by gun violence and no gun vigilante on hand to defend the Constitution of the United States. What could be a more perfect example of the abject FAILURE of your point?

[Cid_B]

66. Heard many things today...

... but I had yet to hear the situation described as "exquisite."

Stay classy...

[CTyankee]

72. "exquisite" can also mean precise. But never mind. Yes, I stay classy...you need English 101.

[Flubadubya]

129. Exactly...

One can be in "exquisite" pain, meaning the worst possible kind. Exquisite does not always carry positive connotation.

[Pancho Sanza]

142. Could you please point me to a dictionary that defines it that way? None of the 5 I checked

managed to do so. Thanks!

[pipoman]

67. Only ignorance of the subject and further disregard for actual

statistics could lead one to this erroneous conclusion.

[pipoman]

122. Check the actual stats and USDOJ links in my post 121 above..

[cleanhippie]

152. The only failure here is your application of a fallacious argument.

It is absurd.

[slackmaster]

123. CTyankee, your position here is quite disingenuous

That has always been AN argument for an armed citizenry, concealed carry, etc. but not the only argument.

[cleanhippie]

151. So because ONE incedent happened, it invalidates the entire claim?

Do we need to dig up the stories where a citizen that was carrying DID prevent a crime?

You attempt to beat your own strawman is failing here.

Your argument is the same as saying that since the fire department failed to put out a single fire then what are we paying them for. Its nonsense and you know it.

[Cid_B]

25. There is a reason it's called bait...

.. don't bother biting.

[CTyankee]

33. I think the reason is...that there is no good answer from the gunners.

It is either true or it isn't. Which is it, Cid?

[Cid_B]

40. I'll help but just this once...

[CTyankee]

43. well, oh my goodness, I give up in the face of statistics for dummies...

pleez...

[cleanhippie]

153. You are not thinking at all, you are ignoring the facts to suit your talking point.

[DainBramaged]

23. I noticed the denizens of the gungeon aren't here to disagree...

:rofl:

[Kingofalldems]

26. +1

:hi:

[DainBramaged]

28. Well, they haven't come up the stairs to dispue what we've said

:hug:

[pipoman]

75. Here, I'll help you out with that...

I noticed the denizens of the gungeon aren't here to disagree offer actual statistics and links which prove the point completely erroneous...

There ya go, fixed it..

[Kaleva]

29. I don't think Arizona law requires everyone to be armed.

I also don't know if any citizens attending the meeting were armed and if so, were they in position to stop the shooting spree?

[CTyankee]

35. Their argument, not mine, is that armed citizens will protect us from the bad guys who are armed.

They'll jump in to save the day, or something like that, because the good guys are also armed. Your statement just proved my point.

Well, here we are in a state with a right to carry arms state and here is the test with a bad guy who has a gun...and it was a massive failure...

[Kaleva]

41. The counter arguement is that the police are capable of protecting people.

Since this has shown that neither the police nor armed citizens who may or not be nearby can protect one, then the responsibility of one's own safety rests entirely with the individual.

[CTyankee]

45. I f that is true either Giffords should have had an armed bodyguard or not shown up

at all, because it was too dangerous.

Now, how would you view a Congress made up of people who had armed guards everywhere they went? What kind of state would that remind you of?

I doubt if it would remind you of a constitutional republic that is a democracy.

[Kaleva]

58. This nation has accepted having a President who is very heavily guarded.

It's been that way for decades. What is your solution? To disarm civilian citizens completely? You'd have to turn this nation into a police state to be able to do that.

[CTyankee]

68. The House of Representatives are just that: they represent the people in the smaller

areas and they are the "people's House." they must be close to the heartbeat of the people. That is their mission and their cause, for better or worse. Given that, if we surrender their safety AGAINST the people, we go against the whole notion of the "people's house." It is now "us vs. them."

That is not what was envisioned by our founders.

[Kaleva]

91. Well, what do well trained soldiers do when the shooting starts?

They hit the ground and/or find cover as fast as they can. They don't charge towards the sounds of the shooting with their own gun blazing. Their first priority to to keep themselves alive cause if they end up dead, they are no good to anyone.

You seem to be arguing that since Arizona is a big pro gun state, everyone there at the meeting, including Congresswoman Griffen and Judge Roll, should have been armed.

[CTyankee]

99. Well, isn't that what is being proposed here?

Everybody out for themselves and nobody else?

This gets to an essential point about a democracy and what that means. If you don't understand that, then I can't really go forward with the discussion...

[Kaleva]

105. I don't know what you are proposing as you wrote the OP.

You seem to be arguing that everyone at the meeting should have been armed, including Rep. Griffen as she is a resident of the state of Arizona, and that everyone should have drawn their guns and started shooting as soon as the shooter drew his gun.

[pipoman]

78. Have a link to anyone actually making that assertion

or did you simply make it up?

[cleanhippie]

154. Where is that argument being made. Please link to that thread.

[-..__...]

34. I could never undertsand why any civilian...

would feel the need, or have any reason to carry a firearm, when we have law enforcement officers to protect us from criminal activity.

Ohhh... wait... never mind.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Recovered Repug]

46. Perhaps the crowd consisted of anti-gun progressives. nt.

[CTyankee]

47. Oh, of course! I never thought of that! Thank you so much!

We progressives better stay in New England where we won't get shot and not go try to do stuff out there in AZ....why, the first amendment don't mean shit to those folks, not unless you gotta gun to protect yourself...

[RegieRocker]

50. Yes guns are for protection

did you finally figure that out?

[CTyankee]

52. Don't ask me. Ask Rep. Gabrielle Giffords...

[RegieRocker]

63. Crass

[CTyankee]

69. Yes. It certainly is!

[RegieRocker]

70. Then why did you say it?

[CTyankee]

73. referring to what you said...

[RegieRocker]

81. I was referring to what you said and it's totally crass

my post was about the people in the crowd who didn't get shot. You brought up a persons name that got shot. That is crass.

[Recovered Repug]

51. I'd probably be in a better position to respond

if I had a clue what the hell you're now talking about.

[CTyankee]

53. Well, think a little harder about what I said...

[Recovered Repug]

55. Put a caboose on your train of thought and get back to me. nt

[CTyankee]

64. OK, look what happened. Rep. Giffords went to speak to the people she

represents in Congress in the spirit of "the right of the people to assemble" in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which she herself read last Wednesday in the Congress on its opening day...and she went to talk to the people about their concerns. If there is a rationale for protecting this right of hers and the people to assemble, then why wasn't the law to carry firearms sufficient to protecting the peoples' right? Where was it?

[Recovered Repug]

71. Well, why didn't you say that the first time?

The law has the POTENTIAL to stop crimes, but only if people choose to exercise their right to carry a gun. Apparently, none (or maybe one according to some reports) chose to exercise their rights.

[CTyankee]

76. Then the law had a negligible effect on what was a perfect example of where it should work.

That makes a mockery of your argument, sir.

[pipoman]

83. Where ever did you get the idea that concealed carry is

about public safety? It has never been framed that way. Surely you can link to something that frames it that way if that is indeed the purpose of shall issue. Shall issue is for one purpose and only one, that is personal protection...not guarantees, not public protection (that is what the police are for), only giving a person a CHANCE at personal protection as opposed to no chance.

[LAGC]

84. What do you suggest?

Should people be FORCED to carry guns in case something like this happens?

If anything, your argument suggests that more people SHOULD conceal-carry guns, even on routine trips to the super-market, since something like this could obviously happen where we least expect it.

[Recovered Repug]

85. The law DID work.

The allows for citizens to carry guns if they CHOOSE. Do you understand that concept? There is no requirement. It is not mandatory. If citizens choose NOT to carry a gun that is also a choice (and still following the law). So are you suggesting that the law should be repealed or expanded to make gun carrying a requirement? And please explain your answer.

[WolverineDG]

57. this may come as a big shock to you but

there are many of us who live in "big pro-gun" states who don't own or carry guns around with us.

Sorry to burst that bubble for ya. Ok, not really.

dg

[CTyankee]

59. I never assumed that you do. And I also don't assume that peope in such states

who own firearms are bad people. Because I don't believe that.

I was challenging the ARGUMENT that states that empower people to carry firearms around, concealed or not concealed, prevent gun violence from bad actors who also carry firearms. That was my point and my only point...

[Kaleva]

61. I think the main arguement is for self defense.

Rarely do I see the arguement that the right to carry affords protection to others.

[RegieRocker]

74. Then why do police carry guns? Just to protect themselves?

[CTyankee]

79. Exactly. The argument brought forward has been to not only protect the individual carrying the gun,

but to others who might be present at the time the violence is taking place. I have heard this on many occasions from people who promote the pro-gun position...

[pipoman]

100. But can't link to a single credible source...hmmm

[Kaleva]

80. Well, their primary job is to enforce the laws and protect the people.

I just don't see many pro carry enthusiasts arguing that they want to enforce the laws and protect the citizens of their neighborhood and/or town.

[CTyankee]

82. Oh, I see. Well, then, why didn't ms. Giffords just carry her own gun...

wouldn't that have prevented this guy from coming up from behind her to shoot her straight through her head? Honestly, whose fault is this, anyway? Sheesh...

[RegieRocker]

87. Absurdity abounds on both sides and yours is a excellent

example of that. It's about people in the crowd who didn't get shot. If they had guns he wouldn't have gotten 18 rounds off. GRRRR

[CTyankee]

97. "peaceably to assemble for the redress of grievances"

[LAGC]

90. Boy, you are sure full of straw men aren't you?

Just because its legal for people to pack heat, doesn't mean they HAVE to, or that most people do.

If anything, your argument only suggests that perhaps more law-abiding citizens SHOULD conceal-carry, even on routine trips to the super-market, since an attack can come when you least expect it.

I bet more people will consider packing heat next time there's a political rally, just in case.

Not that that will prevent another shooting, as you often can't see it coming, but perhaps it wouldn't last as long, with so many victims, if someone was able to fire back.

[RegieRocker]

95. That is the point. The only point. Some one might have been

saved. Making it illegal for people to have or carry guns won't stop criminal minds from breaking the law. That is what criminals do. Break the law. Oh and by the way I have a match for your straw men.

[Kaleva]

93. It's the shooters fault. He's entirely to blame.

[pipoman]

130. Uh, no

You do realize that there are several SCOTUS cases which state that the ONLY people law enforcement is obligated to protect from harm are people in police custody, no?

Further, the primary responsibility of law enforcement is to enforce laws through investigation of crime. They investigate after a crime has been committed. Police have absolutely no authority to do much of anything until a crime has been committed. So no, their job isn't to protect the people, no matter how many "serve and protect" stickers they put on their car..

[pipoman]

88. Police act offensively

and yes, their guns are mostly for personal protection. Concealed carry is strictly defensive protection and always has been. Hope this clears it up for you.

[fascisthunter]

94. Danke!

[pipoman]

86. And your point is flawed because

you have yet to link to any credible (or incredible for that matter) source making that assertion. Concealed carry has always been about allowing a person a chance to effectively defend THEMSELVES and nobody else necessarily.

[CTyankee]

89. well, uh, your FAMILY maybe...your kid or your spouse or your mother...

NAH, it's all about YOU and only YOU...

Got it...

[pipoman]

103. Don't like the truth...tough

if a person with concealed carry happens to help someone else, good.

Have that link yet to a credible source siting public protection as a reason to enact shall issue concealed carry? Anyone?

[RegieRocker]

115. Spin this

http://www.concealedcarryassociation.com/

Concealed Carry - Violence Prevention
Concealed Carry Membership
"Our purpose in the association is to ward off predators before a confrontation takes place and try to save lives by doing so"

The Concealed Carry Association is dedicated to the proposition that potential deadly confrontations are best avoided while they are still potential and before they have gotten out of hand. We believe that avoidance can best be achieved by the potential victim status, their training in the use of weapons, and their willingness to do so if it becomes necessary for their own protection or the protection of others.

The Concealed Carry Association assists those who want to express their unwillingness to become a helpless victim, and help you avoid the serious consequences that inevitably accompany an armed confrontation. These tools help you to communicate that you are in possession of a deadly weapon and that you possess the training and determination necessary to efficiently protect yourself and others.

The 2nd Amendment to the constitution of the United States guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Many states have augmented this constitutional guarantee by enacting concealed carry laws, which allow private citizens to possess a deadly weapon for the purposes of protection and self-defense.

As important and effective as our laws may be in regard to the citizen’s right to appropriately respond to an unprovoked violent attack, they do little to deter a perpetrator who is in the planning stage of their attack.

[pipoman]

116. Why not cite anything here which indicates a

responsibility or purpose for public protection? This entire statement is devoted to defensive use of a firearm, nothing indicating anything resembling advocating of people acting offensively.

[RegieRocker]

126. I put up as you requested. Hard to deal with

the truth for you isn't it Mr. Spin. Don't want to acknowledge it in black and white. You seem to have a hard time with comprehension. It clearly states "protection of others “. You wanted proof you have been shown proof and you don't want to acknowledge it. You're a waste of my valuable time.

[pipoman]

128. Of coarse I am because you have failed to show anything

resembling your assertion that concealed carry is advocated as a public safety measure. Others will read this and make their own mind if you have made the case. Anyone willing to read can see your citation isn't even close.

[RegieRocker]

132. Your words have no meaning and those that agree with you

that I didn't provide proof.


From what I posted
and their willingness to do so if it becomes necessary for their own protection or the PROTECTION OF OTHERS.

[pipoman]

149. And you read that as some sort of obligation

or advocating of obligation? Wow. If I were carrying and out with friends maybe my self defensive action would also protect others, it isn't being used as justification (not that self defense should require further justification). CCW classes ALWAYS stress use of force for self defense only, as do most state CCW laws.

[Kaleva]

60. I live in the big gun friendly state of Michigan.

And I own two Mosin Nagant bolt action rifles but no ammo for them. They wouldn't do much good protecting anybody unless I used them as clubs.

[fascisthunter]

96. thought provoking

and uncomfortable for many

[LAGC]

101. The problem with your argument is that its all anecdotal.

Just because there was nobody in that particular crowd packing heat (or too afraid to draw their weapon if they were) doesn't dismiss the fact that lawful concealed-carry prevents far more crimes than it causes. Often times, all it takes is just drawing a weapon to cause a perpetrator to think twice about what he's doing.

Fact is, you can never hope to prevent crimes of this nature when the perp gets the jump on you. What you can do is minimize the violence, and I really wish there was someone in that crowd packing heat (or not too afraid to draw) to stop this guy from killing as many people as he did. I mean, the Congresswoman's injuries may have not been preventable, but what about the little girl? The Federal judge? I can't help but think if someone, ANYONE had intervened, we might not have seen as much bloodshed.

No guarantee mind you, but I'd have felt better if someone had at least tried to stop it, since the police obviously couldn't.

[RegieRocker]

102. Others disagree with this notion.

Absurd.

[pipoman]

104. A thoughtful, lengthy response

dismissed by one word has absolutely no persuasive weight.

[RegieRocker]

106. LOL and 8 more words makes all the difference. Right.

[pipoman]

107. It is easy to trump one word with 8.

[RegieRocker]

109. So it's words huh? Lol so the more that you type and spew

more hot air and not really get to the point is the best way? Then I just trumped your 9 words with 35 words. You going to up the ante and come back with 36 or more. Is that the way you work?

[pipoman]

111. I'm still waiting for you to say something

[RegieRocker]

112. Open your eyes you can't hear me. Duh

[tuckessee]

108. It was enough to stomp you into the ground. n/t

[RegieRocker]

110. It was nothing just like your response all hot air.

[Erose999]

141. The shooter was carrying lawfully too. Right up until he shot Giffords.

[X_Digger]

113. Concealed carry has always been about protecting oneself.

I've not seen a source as to your claim that some proposed it as an alternate means of law enforcement.

Concealed carriers do happen to get the drop on criminals with guns on occasion, however-

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/16/ap/national/main7157952.shtml

As they were trying to tie up the store owner, he took out a handgun from his waistband and fatally shot one of the suspects, Smith said.

http://charlotte.news14.com/content/top_stories/628167/man-at-atm-fires-back-at-would-be-armed-robber

According to police, the man was attempting to use a Cash Points ATM on Eastway Drive at North Tryon Street around 11 p.m. A suspect seemingly saw that as an opportunity and tried to rob the victim at gunpoint.

However, that victim was also armed. He shot the suspect twice in the leg.

http://www.wxix.com/Global/story.asp?S=12299813

CINCINNATI, OH (FOX19) - Cincinnati Police are investigating a shooting where it appears a robber left the scene with the victim's cell-phone in his hand, and a slug from the victim's gun in his lower abdomen.

Police say the robber ran into someone with a concealed-carry permit, and at some point the would-be victim was able to get his gun out and shoot the suspect, who took off running from the shooting scene on Rosemont Avenue south of Glenway in West Price Hill.

[friendly_iconoclast]

118. You did notice that there was not even one citation from the DU guns forum?

Much less anywhere else? A strawman that would do credit to the Nebraska State Fair, in other words...

[spin]

114. Assume that you have a concealed weapons permit and found yourself in a similar situation ...

what do you think that you would do.

The first question to be answered is, was carrying a firearm at the rally legal. I haven't read a discussion or report on this subject.

But assume that it was legal to carry a weapon at the event. You are standing in the middle of a crowd when you hear something that sounds like firecrackers. It will take you perhaps 15 seconds to figure out what exactly is happening. If the shooter is not standing right by you, you will have to try a difficult shot at a moving target surrounded by a mass of terrified people attempting to escape. Pulling your firearm may make you appear to be part of the problem rather than a solution and lead to you being shot by law enforcement or other person with a concealed weapon.

I understand a number of people jumped on the shooter and stopped him. If you were standing right by him, this might have been the best approach to handling the problem. A good class on self defense will teach you some very effective ways for disarming a person with a handgun.

Also the fact that you have a concealed weapons permit in no way makes you a police officer or requires you to use your weapon in such a situation. That is your choice.

edited for typo

[friendly_iconoclast]

117. Youve responded several times- All those words, and yet not *one* citation!

Why am I not surprised?

[CTyankee]

119. I think #l04 made the case well.

I would imagine, tho,that what I have been saying has been said in the Gungeon plenty of times. At least I've heard it and read it. The idea is a kind Cold War mentality. We arm because they arm and then nobody dares attack you because it would be MAD, mutually assured destruction.

Poor you, you are trying so hard to wriggle away from an argument that you know is often made by the pro gunners. Plenty of evidence to be found with people who arm themselves to be used against home invaders, only to have the gun used in tragic domestic arguments. I know. It happened in my family.

[pipoman]

125. What does my post #104 have to do with this response?

Actually my post #121 (near the top of this thread) is germane to your completely erroneous assertions in this thread..

[RegieRocker]

127. Nah he got destroyed but I bet you' re just like him

argue against what is in black and white before your face.

[CTyankee]

133. sorry, it was before my morning coffee...it was #114.

Since I have seen this in my own family, I know it all too well. The gun kept "for protection" winds up in the hands of its owner, drunk and angry at being cut out of his dying wife's will with a lot of money at stake, goes for the gun and an innocent young woman who just happened to be present (taking care of the dying woman, her grandmother)is killed instantly by the shooter, whether accidently or not and that doesn't matter. This young woman, married only 4 months before, with her whole life ahead of her...And then her funeral, where her pallbearers are the very young men who ushered at her recent wedding. And the young woman's husband, crushed and heartbroken, and her father, my brother, sinking to his knees sobbing at the sight of her in her casket...

This is a true narrative and one that I have lived and it will be with me forever.

Please put me on your ignore list. I would consider it a favor.

[RegieRocker]

134. I thought you might have made that mistake

but around here you never know. Did you see what I posted and now he doesn't want to acknowledge it?

[pipoman]

150. Your difficulties with reading comprehension

don't translate into victory.

[friendly_iconoclast]

145. "...what I have been saying has been said in the Gungeon plenty of times." No, it hasn't.

First off, my condolences to you for the tragedy in your family. No one here doubts that guns can and are used to hurt and kill.


That said, that wasn't part of your OP and you didn't mention it until it became rather obvious that you don't have

any evidence to back up your claim in the OP. You've had the better part of a day and a half to put that donor star to good use

searching for an example to provide us.



You have not done so. Had you done so, you would have found people like me reminding people like you that, no, CCW owners are

not cops and shouldn't be expected to act like cops.


Instead, we get some sort of 'argumentum ad repititum' (so to speak).

[CTyankee]

146. It will make you feel better to put me on your ignore list. Please do so.

[friendly_iconoclast]

160. I couldn't point out the errors in your posts if I were to do that.

But thank you for your concern for my feelings...

[CTyankee]

166. Yes, and goodbye. You are dismissed...

[xchrom]

120. recommend

[Pancho Sanza]

135. Since police have neither the obligation nor ability to protect citizens,

I can't see why anyone would expect civilians to provide that service, armed or not. I noticed you had many posts over a 12 hour period, so obviously you have lots of time to mull over this issue...I searched (in vain thus far) for your suggestions or specific recommendations on just exactly how to remedy a problem you obviously consider very serious. If I missed them I apologize and would humbly ask you to let me know where they can be found. Thanks!

[CTyankee]

159. Thank you , Pancho Sanza for your thoughtful reply.

I have heard over the years (and perhaps it has, or has not, been written down) that if everyone has a gun then we are all safer. Why: because a lone gunman could be out gunned if he/she tried anything in a public forum.

So now it comes down to this group who says "No, we never meant we would guarantee everyone's safety in the public square."

So we are left with "WTF?;

So that is my argument. You may like or not like. I don't have long texts to prove as truth. I really only have many years of hearing same...

[Pancho Sanza]

168. Fair enough, I accept your observation, that someone, somewhere said

(or possibly even written) that "if everyone has a gun we are all safer". As for me, I have never heard or read that claim but it certainly doesn't mean some idiots didn't actually do it at some time. I don't think you will find reasonable people, gun owners or no, that would claim it as a rational position. To me, and I do not speak for others, I want to reserve my own right to defend myself and others I might designate against agressors who probably don't have my best interest (or any laws) at heart.

[demwing]

136. Well, the LAST thing I'm going to do at a political event where some psycho starts shooting

is pull out my gun and get confused with the shooter.

[Brooklyns_Finest]

137. What you talkin about willis?

(CNN) -- Within SECONDS after the shooting began, a man who was grazed by a bullet grabbed the gunman, a middle-aged woman wrestled ammunition away from him, and a group of people held him down while another man grabbed the gun out of his hand, a man who helped subdue the shooter told CNN Sunday.

[rbnyc]

139. No fucking doubt.

I get so sick of that argument. So glad you mad ethat point.

[RidinMyDonkey]

144. The congresswoman herself is a gun owner

But as I pointed out to several people yesterday, even if she would have been carrying it at the time, it's hard to pull out your own gun when someone just walks up to you and starts shooting from three feet away. Bullets work pretty instantly, there is rarely time for retaliation shots. The whole thing supposedly happened in 20 seconds. Even if someone at the event was carrying their gun and had it already loaded, safety off, and ready to shoot, a lot can happen in 20 seconds with a gun.

[CTyankee]

161. and this is why I have asked the gungeon people to please disengage from me via Ignore.

In essence, I do not want them even reading my responses anywhere!

I do not care to ever hear from them in my entire lifetime.

I do not want to engage in them in conversation and I hope they feel the same way.

I am happy, not miserable.

Stop talking and start listening...

[friendly_iconoclast]

169. I'm sorry, but you do not get to make that choice.

If someone breaks DU rules, then by all means alert a moderator. People have said things to and about me that I did not like,

but I have not demanded that those other DUers not respond to what I say. If I post an opinion, I am prepared to defend it from any

and all comers. If someone else cares not for what I say, they can respond (or not) as they see fit, within the rules of Democratic

Underground. I accepted those rules, as did you, when I joined.



Are your opinions so fragile they are threatened by the averse opinions of others? I think not.

You are free to post what you like (within DU rules, of course), and we are free to respond (also within the bounds of DU rules),

without seeking a nihil obstat from you beforehand.



Unless and until you become a moderator, you do not have the privilige of deciding who may and may not respond to your posts.

[cleanhippie]

170. Translation: I do not want to hear about reality.

And considering that you have responded innumerable times here without even once bothering to acknowledge the facts, perhaps your advice of Stop talking and start listening would be better served as a self-help application.

[WillyT]

155. Most Excellent Point...

:kick: & Rec !!!

[DainBramaged]

156. The unrecing crew is doing it's best to kill this thread, kick for gun sanity

[CTyankee]

164. don't give one sh*t.....

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chorophyll]

165. K to tha freakin' R. nt