Sheriff Joe Arpaio Wants Gun Owners To 'Take Down' Mass Shooters

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Wants Gun Owners To 'Take Down' Mass Shooters

This is fricken ridiculous. The LAST thing we need in one of these situations is to add MORE guns to the equation. Especially when the source of that gun is someone with questionable training. Now I'm sure all the properly trained gun owners on ATS will be quick to jump on here and point out how great they are with guns, but look at this:

Joe Arpaio, the self-styled “toughest” sheriff in America, has a solution to mass shootings and terrorism: Gun-wielding citizens need to step up to the plate.

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, said law enforcement officers alone cannot battle the scourge of violence plaguing the country. As such, he’s beseeching the 250,000 gun owners in Arizona to do their part.

250,000 gun owners in Arizona ALONE. Do you HONESTLY believe that each one of them is properly trained to fire back under stress? Keep in mind firing at a target in a gun range is a LOT different than picking a target in real life with bullets flying back at you. Sheriff Joe goes on to say this:

“I'm just talking about the areas where you have large crowds and someone pulls out the gun and starts shooting. Maybe somebody with a concealed weapon takes the guy down,” Arpaio said, according to KPHO-TV.

Someone in a crowd? Even the military doesn't let you shoot back at terrorists shooting from a crowd and Sheriff Joe wants a civilian gun owner to shoot back? HELLO additional casualties.

Since 1993, when Arpaio was elected sheriff, he’s been running an armed civilian posse program, which involves local gun owners patrolling areas in their communities.

Back in 2013, in the weeks after the deadly shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Arpaio announced that thousands of armed civilians would be deployed to “protect” regions surrounding dozens of Phoenix-area schools.

Over the weekend, the sheriff announced that the posse would be patrolling local malls this holiday season “to provide law enforcement protection to shoppers.”

Because we all LOVE to see armed people patroling around us while we are shopping...

Arpaio's strategy has been met with strong disapproval from some in the Arizona law enforcement community.

Steve Henry, chief deputy of the sheriff's office in neighboring Pinal County, told KPHO that the actions of armed, but untrained, civilians could pose an increased risk to innocent bystanders.

“Sometimes it's not proper to pull the trigger because the collateral damage is not worth it,” Henry said. “We don't want to walk into a gun fight between anybody, much less a gun fight where people are untrained.”

At least SOMEONE in Arizona gets it.

Look, I'm not saying that the solutions we have now are great are preferable, but adding more guns to a situation like this is a recipe for disaster. It's only a matter of time before a situation like that would blow up in everyone's faces.

He isnt the only Sheriff who cares about people protecting themselves and others.

concealednation.org...

www.buckeyefirearms.org...

www.detroitnews.com...

www.dailyfreeman.com...

legalinsurrection.com...

a reply to: misskat1

So do you think that is a good idea? Because I don't.

Edit: I can't find any footage, its been removed for "posterity" sake. But the Texas Tower shooting had civilians showing up with their rifles and banging away at the shooter.

Back then the police welcomed the help. Nowadays anyone outside with a gun thats not a cop would get gunned down, no questions asked.

Texas archive

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It could end up being the only choice.

Untrained gun owner returning fire.
Or
Hiding in a corner.

I know which one I wound rather be.
Enjoy your corner, hope it works out for ya.

To be honest, I tend to agree with him (and he's far from alone in the police community in this regard, BTW). Its becoming increasingly clear that the police can't respond in time to prevent these incidents or even limit the damage to any significant degree. Law abiding citizens need to have the right and ability to defend themselves in these situations. Yes, it could potentially be a double-edged sword, but in general, gun owners understand that they're responsible for each and every round they fire, both in a civil and criminal manner. With a significant percentage of the adult population in many states possessing carry permits already, if this were going to be a major issue among legal permit holders and people carrying lawfully, I think we'd have already seen it.

I think it depends on how you personally view guns. Im part native American and my dad was a red neck trapper, so Ive been around them all my life. To me and most red neck Americans, they are like any other tool. I dont see them as a weapon to kill innocent people, I see them as a tool to provide protection and food if necessary. You can kill someone with a garden shovel or use it to dig a garden.

PS I might be an old granny but, I can still lock and load, and btw you and me, Ive killed a lot of cans in my life. Not AmeriCans or MexiCans or AfriCans etc. But, I surely would if my family was attacked. I may not see as well as I used to, but I can still throw a can in the air and make it dance. lol Get behind me moron.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So do you think that is a good idea? Because I don't.

So? Don't carry a gun and don't go out in public.
What message do we want to send to the crazies doing this? Hide? Run? Cower? Get a pair of scissors?
Seems that doesn't work.

One gun owner attempting to stop a mass shooter and (maybe) accidentally hits an innocent bystander in the process

Or

No one attempts to stop the mass shooter and he kills 20 more people before he's through.

I know which one I would choose if I were the one given the choice. In some of these situations the shooter actually stops to reload and everyone is just waiting for him to do it because no one else wants to die. Who can blame them? We need to start behaving differently and if we did, I feel like even that would cut down on this trend.

As it stands... we have become a nation of folks who don't. Stand up that is. Some people have it in them to do what they can regardless of their own safety in some situations like this. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but if more of us tried then maybe we would succeed more often.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have to have these types of discussions, but we don't live in a world like that. With attacks apparently escalating we are going to have to learn how to get over the sheer terror and start fighting back at some point or it's likely going to get worse long before it gets better.

Most , not all , of your firearm owners are very responsible with their firearms. An incapacitated (DRT) mass shooter that becomes ambient temperature quickly cannot do any more harm. Remember the security guard at the Texas "Art" Competition:
Security guard -2 , ISIS -0 , and no innocents injured.They both assumed ambient temp before they could do harm.

originally posted by: vor78
Yes, it could potentially be a double-edged sword, but in general, gun owners understand that they're responsible for each and every round they fire, both in a civil and criminal manner. With a significant percentage of the adult population in many states possessing carry permits already, if this were going to be a major issue among legal permit holders and people carrying lawfully, I think we'd have already seen it.

Do they? DO THEY? YOU may believe that, but as for gun owners as a whole I'm not so sure. Plus it only takes one.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hang on though. If it's ok to own a gun and if you say you have one for protection, then wouldn't it be a good idea to use it on someone who's shooting other people? Otherwise, why would you have one?
Because that would surely be the best and most appropriate time to use one?
Aargh, Americans, I find you so confusing.

Oh this is just peachy.

More stochastic terrorism.

Just what the world needs.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why twist what is being said....typical propaganda of the left. It needs to stop!

Hey, some common sense wisdom from Joe.
Obviously any attempt at stopping an attack is progress is better than running and hiding.
I'd rather get hit by a stray bullet from a hero trying to take down the attacker than get wasted by the filth because no one is locked and loaded.
Positives outweigh the negatives here.
Go Joe. Not everyone is comfortable being a sitting duck waiting on law enforcement to save the day.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

How about working on efforts to fix gun culture so that people don't go on shooting rampages all the time? Stop making media circuses out of every mass shooting, immortalizing the people who do it in everyone's collective consciousness, and actually get to the bottom of what is making people do these things?

You know the intelligent and rational approach instead of the violent one? We talk day and night about humans trying to move into a higher form of enlightenment, evolution, spiritual being, etc, but then at the DROP of a hat we revert RIGHT back to our primal instincts. Violence? Well, violence right back!

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why twist what is being said....typical propaganda of the left. It needs to stop!

What am I twisting exactly?

Funny that you never hear of a successful mass shooting at a gun range, gun store or anywhere the majority of citizens present are carrying.

originally posted by: beansidhe
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hang on though. If it's ok to own a gun and if you say you have one for protection, then wouldn't it be a good idea to use it on someone who's shooting other people? Otherwise, why would you have one?
Because that would surely be the best and most appropriate time to use one?
Aargh, Americans, I find you so confusing.

Thats OK . I am a natural born US citizen and I find this whole ordeal confusing. People do not want try to protect themselves and others ? You certainly dont want to bring a face slap to a gun fight...Or better yet. Talk him into submission.