Anti gun legislation

goodtimes

Expedition Poseur
It's the Second...

Ha! See what happens before a full pot of coffee?

Of course, you are correct. Search and seizure (4th) is a completely different subject.

weezerbot said:
I have a CCW (from back when it was required) and generally carry daily, and I have to say in a chaotic situation like that, if I'd been there I'm not sure I would have fired. This did not take place in a contained area, it was outside in the open with people running everywhere. Unless I saw the guy walk up and start shooting from the beginning and had a 100% clear shot there is no way I'd come out guns blazing.

That is what the interviewee did -- and it was the right decision. I like to think I (and everyone else) would respond in the same fashion.


thebrassknuckles said:
Training.

A cop wont run into a room full of guys with guns and start taking them out... (hopefully:Wow1:)

a CCW holder when told to by the police will put his gun down.

a criminal when told the same.. generally wont..


if the guy who had tackled the shooter had a gun, he wouldnt have tackled the shooter, he would have shot him.
The second guy, would then have seen a guy holding a gun on a guy laying on the ground. His next action would have been to assess the situation, and decide if anyone needed further doses of lead... (hopefully no one would need any more lead) then the police would have shown up to a bunch of CCW guys giving each other high fives for saving the day.:wings:

ok not the high fives part. but you know.

Yes, training helps. And no, police aren't always there quick enough to respond before stuff hits the fan, leaving people to respond themselves (and I believe that law abiding citizens should have every right to respond and protect themselves and others around them). But remove the police from the scenario and replace them with un-trained people who are legally carrying a concealed weapon (remember, no permit is required in AZ).

How does that untrained person respond when they hear shouting, screaming, and gun-shots, run around the corner and see a scruffy, dirty, guy shooting at a group of 3 people (all yelling at each other) -- a man, a woman, and a small child, all trying to get away from the shooter -- who is still shooting.

Is the shooter trying to murder someone, or is he trying to stop the man from kidnapping the woman and child? You don't have time to stop and ask each one what is going on. You can either shoot the shooter, possibly killing a good Samaritan and letting a kidnapper/murderer get away with two innocent victims, you can stand there and yell until the cows come home (or otherwise not get involved) -- all to no effect, or you can join the shooter in trying to dispatch the potential family, at the risk of killing someone who is simply trying to run away from someone trying to kill them.

We all know that the new guy on the scene shouldn't shoot until he *knows* what is going on, but we also all know that that isn't always the case. What level of training (if any) should be required before you are allowed to respond to these types of situations? Or, as some believe, should people not be allowed to respond with deadly force?

Yes, I'm playing a bit of the devil's advocate here, but I think the guy in the interview I mentioned earlier brings up a really good point. How do you ensure that people responding in these situations have a solid foundation to evaluate a situation from, and make life-or-death decisions from? Again, in AZ, absolutely no training is required to carry a concealed weapon.
 
absolutely no training is required to carry a concealed weapon.



Training is not required in many states. but just like any tool, proper training is very important to the operation of a firearm.

and knowing when to use it is just as important as knowing how.

That being said, it is no ones responsibility but the owner of said tool to get the proper training. ans even with training you can never tell how you are going to react in a high stress situation until you have been in one.
 

Wiley

Adventurer
There is also the risk of you trying to stop the alleged killer, and being mistaken by someone else as part of the problem, therefore getting shot at yourself.

I think the biggest thing people need to keep in mind is that while several people died...and of course it is tragic, it happens everyday all over the world. All this gun changing laws talk, and internet crackdown rumors are from people overreacting, this was simple 1 guy who had problems, and took them out on innocent lives.
 
I had a friend get his 4th ammendmet rights violated by a LEO the other day at a gas station the other day. It was a seemingly harmless iteraction, uless you know your rights.

He was standing in line and a cop walked up to him and gives him a friendly pat on the shoulder and says "How you doin man?"

My buddy says.. "uhh... I dont know you"

cop: "I know, I was just checking yo see if you were wearing a vest." (as in bullet proof vest/ second chance whatever)

My buddy just shrugged it off, but whe he told me I informed him that he was illegally searched and should have gotten the cops badge number and name.

seems harmless enough, but it just shows you that because someone is a cop, doesnt mean they know the laws.
 

Mr. Leary

Glamping Excursionaire
I'm still scratching my head about that CCW thing in AZ. You can concealed carry without a permit? Are your legislators trying to re-create the wild west?

I know we have the Castle Law in Texas which extends the rights you enjoy at home to your vehicle, but who in their right mind would allow non-permitted concealed carry in a state with (correct me if I'm wrong) gun shows where firearms can be purchased from and by individuals without a background check, no formal documentation for transfer of gun ownership, and no gun safety class requirements?

Am I the only one who sees a disconnect here?

I enjoy and exercise my second amendment rights as much or more then most folks, but I also advocate safety and training, so that risky folks such as this very disturbed gentleman have a tougher time causing problems. I just don't see a whole lot of common sense in the gun control programs I have seen, thats all...
 
I'm still scratching my head about that CCW thing in AZ. You can concealed carry without a permit? Are your legislators trying to re-create the wild west?

I know we have the Castle Law in Texas which extends the rights you enjoy at home to your vehicle, but who in their right mind would allow non-permitted concealed carry in a state with (correct me if I'm wrong) gun shows where firearms can be purchased from and by individuals without a background check, no formal documentation for transfer of gun ownership, and no gun safety class requirements?

Am I the only one who sees a disconnect here?

I enjoy and exercise my second amendment rights as much or more then most folks, but I also advocate safety and training, so that risky folks such as this very disturbed gentleman have a tougher time causing problems. I just don't see a whole lot of common sense in the gun control programs I have seen, thats all...


You can buy a hammer withoug a background check, and carry it around too. and you can damn sure kill someone with a hammer.

also, there is no common sense in any gun control programs. They dont make sense.

If a criminal wants a gun, they are gonna get one. and most of the time, illegally...
 

1911

Expedition Leader
... who in their right mind would allow non-permitted concealed carry in a state with (correct me if I'm wrong) gun shows where firearms can be purchased from and by individuals without a background check, no formal documentation for transfer of gun ownership, and no gun safety class requirements?

The founding fathers; the framers of the constitution, among others.
 

Mr. Leary

Glamping Excursionaire
If a criminal wants a gun, they are gonna get one. and most of the time, illegally...

I completely agree, but why would you go out of your way to create easy avenues for them to do so?

Example: Joe convict, a convicted murderer, walks out of prison. The next day, he decides to go to a gun show. He cannot prchase a firearm from a vendor because they are required to conduct background checks, so he flags down an individual walking around with a gun for sale. They make a deal, hea walks away with his new pistol. No background check, no hassle. He can purchase all the ammunition he needs right there at the same show, and because AZ does not require a concealed carry lisence, the police would be risking their jobs to question the legality of his possession.

The founding fathers; the framers of the constitution, among others.

So you are implying that we should stop conducting any background checks, and allow anyone who walks in the front door to buy any gun they want?
 

goodtimes

Expedition Poseur
there is no common sense in any gun control programs. They dont make sense.

I disagree. Some measures do make sense. For example, convicted felons, particularly murderers and rapists, shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. Instant background checks while purchasing firearms are a good example of that measure being enforced.

If a criminal wants a gun, they are gonna get one. and most of the time, illegally...

Unfortunately, many times that is true. But without the laws, there would be no way to punish them when they get caught -- and like it or not, that punishment is what keeps most people from breaking those laws.

If it wasn't illegal to rob a bank, we'd all be robbing banks instead of working every day.
 

1911

Expedition Leader
So you are implying that we should stop conducting any background checks, and allow anyone who walks in the front door to buy any gun they want?

Pretty much, yes.

How effective have all the gun laws we already have been at stopping crime and the mentally ill? It's already illegal to use a gun a to commit a crime; why do we think that someone who's willing to commit murder will be deterred by lesser laws, background checks, or federal forms to fill out? How many other constitutional rights do you need a background check to exercise?

But beyond all that, yes I have more faith in the constitution and in the U.S. citizenry than I do in the privileged class of modern politicians and big government that we are saddled with in this country today. I'm a libertarian, and believe that the least amount of laws and government necessary, the better. I'm willing to take the risk of violent individuals in society (which we have anyway, regardless of all the laws) against my own personal liberties.
 

02TahoeMD

Explorer
Just some random points to join in the fray here:

-You can buy firearms in some states with an instant background check for handguns. All long guns in 99% of the states I am aware of, only require basic paperwork to pay and carry. Other states require a waiting period to accomplish the purchase of a handgun.

Now, a word about background checks - they only check for criminal histories. Mental illness issues are not entered into the system. So, if a person is dishonest about his mental health (all purchase paperwork has questions about this) there is no legitimate means of proving them wrong owing to health privacy issues.

-This event is a tragedy of epic proportions. But banning guns, etc, will not solve the problem. If someone is off their rocker, they will commit a mass violent act with whatever item they so choose - be it a car, using a sword, airplane, bulldozer, etc etc. Just look around the world where countries have extremely strict gun control laws and you can still find incidents where there are mass acts of violence. Just not done with guns.

As an aside, I just do not understand how far gone Great Britain is. For someone to not even be able to defend their home with lethal force is a completely unacceptable policy. I also recall a UK case about a decade ago where an officer or security personnel performed an assistance to society by removing a piece of vermin from the gene pool with a Browning Hi-Power and then getting charged criminally for having done his duty - in a case that would have gotten him a pat on the back and a medal here in the states. Just horrible way to treat the strong and upright in society who are willing to face the wolves and take them out. Ugh.

-The absolute knee jerk reaction by so many in the media, down to the sheriff of the involved county, to blame a certain section / political persuasion of our society for this horrible tragedy is completely unacceptable. This guy was just plain old EVIL and has nothing to do with one party or another. Think these guys will apologize for their unfounded rants and accusations? Probably not. I mean, was Jodie Foster responsible for John Hinckley shooting President Reagan? Nope, not at all.

Also, in regards to media - they should not be blazoning his mugshot and name all over the internet. That is giving him more recognition with each passing moment and is rewarding his behavior. Every time I see that grin of his I get ill - and it just is giving fuel to the next nutjob who wants to be infamous. Enough! Stop using his name and pic!!

-It is also very sad to me that someone didnt put a round in this guy's head the instant he drew his gun and opened up. That would have been the only proper punishment for him. Now he gets to be a ward of the taxpayers getting three hots and a cot every day for years and years and years. I feel the same way about this scum terrorist whom I wont name who shot up Fort Hood. We should not have wasted one bit of medical technology to save that dirtbag's life.

If anyone is faced with an active shooter like this in an environment with many innocents present, the best means of dealing with them is to close from behind them as quickly and closely as possible then shooting them from behind. If you are able to actually make a muzzle contact shot on the spine or head, then by all means do so. There is no such thing as playing fair when shutting scum like this down as quickly as possible.

Let us not forget the victims, both the deceased and those wounded, so many lives will never be the same......
 

xtatik

Explorer
Gun haters are not alone. Gun rights supporters are also already jumping in saying how fewer people would have been murdered if everyone there had a gun.

There was a story (linked from either CNN or MSN) which included an interview with one of the people who tackled the shooter. In the interview, the person admits that he almost shot one of the other people trying to subdue the shooter, because that other person had grabbed the shooters gun to keep it away from him.

When the interviewee got to the scene, he saw a man with a gun pointed at another person, and initially thought *he* was the shooter. He almost shot him (the person holding the gun), but at the last second decided to tackle him instead -- a good decision on his part. But, it brings up a valid point. If everyone at the scene has a gun drawn, how does anyone (for example - a police officer responding to a call, who was not there at the outset of the incident) know who the criminal is?

I heard this interview the other day as well. There were actually a few CCW people either in the store or parking lot area. None were able to affect any difference in the outcome....happened too fast.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
188,295
Messages
2,905,069
Members
229,959
Latest member
bdpkauai
Top