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

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How about that indeed?? Again... In a perfect world that would be what would happen and the problem could be fixed. I have no clue how to fix it myself, so until then I (we) will have to adapt in some sort of way. We can either be victims or we can try to protect ourselves in the interim.

It would be nice if I had all the answers and if I did, I would not hesitate to fix it. There is indeed something very wrong. Anyone with sense can see that. I just don't know what to do about it myself (alone).

a reply to: buster2010

There are always going to be variables in every situation.

I havent heard of any instances where a concealed carry person stopped a tragedy while at the same time creating a tragedy by accidentally killing an innocent. But, in reality we have those killed by friendly fire even in a military confrontation.

I dont think the potential friendly fire problem outweighs the need to stop a gunman in his tracks.

a reply to: buster2010

I couldn't agree more...I have been against concealed handgun licenses for the exact reasons you articulated...
Joe blow vigilante should not be allowed to carry a killing machine in his waistband because he took a 6 hour class...and don't get me started on the fact that come January 1 people in Texas will be allowed to wear open guns like the freaking Wild West..

But as I stated, my position is evolving...my wife and I were at hunger games a few weeks ago and talked about the fact that if a shooter were to enter we hoped an off duty officer was there with his firearm...

Anyhow, I am conflicted on the issue but i bought a small, light j frame smith & Wesson yesterday and plan on getting a permit, conflicted or not...

It is utterly heartbreaking that the world seems to be going backwards in its evolutionary sensibilities...

******if movies simply instituted metal detectors it would (probably) solve my issue...as I only plan on carrying to the movies with my wife so we can watch films with at least the thought we will have a fighting chance if a psychopath decides to start shooting

-Christosterone

I wonder that the legal standing would be if a nutter fired off a few shots and people returning fire shot and killed a group of school kids on a field trip? would it just be 'oh well - friendly fire accident - its why we have the 2nd' or would they be responsible for the deaths and have to go to court to explain their actions.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What if they fire one shot that stops the mass shooter?

Look, we can argue 'what ifs' all day and can conjure up all sorts of best and worst case scenarios. If someone makes a mistake, then you prosecute that individual. I don't think you strip the right and ability of everyone to protect themselves.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't care what your opinion on those of us who carry firearms on a daily basis--even with your rancid opinion of us, I'd still do what I could to save you if you were in that situation.

a reply to: Christosterone

******if movies simply instituted metal detectors it would (probably) solve my issue...as I only plan on carrying to the movies with my wife so we can watch films with at least the thought we will have a fighting chance if a psychopath decides to start shooting

That would be an excellent idea, because like it or not there is a problem with mass shootings. Don't let anyone bring a gun to the cinema in the first place.

a reply to: Maxatoria

Of course they would have to explain their actions in court. Again, an individual gun owner is responsible, legally and financially, for every single round they fire at all times. This is one of the things stressed in any halfway decent concealed carry class.

a reply to: misskat1

I dont think the potential friendly fire problem outweighs the need to stop a gunman in his tracks.

Tell that to the people who lost loved ones because someone who isn't trained started shooting into a crowd to stop someone.

Let's take a situation like the Aurora shooting and add 15 people carrying guns that aren't afraid to use them. Do you really think that situation will end well? You're in a dark, chaotic environment. How are all 15 of those people supposed to know who the original shooter is? How are they supposed to know those other 14 people aren't with the original shooter? You're bound to get crossfire with a bunch of innocents stuck in the middle.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is fricken ridiculous. The LAST thing we need in one of these situations is to add MORE guns to the equation.

Funny, I am pro gun control, bit I would think that is EXACTLY what you will want to add in these situations.
I cannot think of any situation where it would make LESS sense to hug it out. Negotiation us useless, seconds matter.

In fact, this is precisely the situation where the negative consequences of my stance on guns becomes evident- I cannot intervene when bad guys do bad things to good people.

And that sucks.

Luckily I live in a place where very few - both good and bad - own guns, so I am not likely to face a situation where the downside of gun control becomes evident and neither are my fellow man.

But the thing is that you guys are NOT that lucky. You WILL be faced with that situation

- again.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I think it much more likely that if a person is unable to identify the perpetrator, they won't fire at all. Along the same lines, I also think that the vast majority of people, rather than being the stereotypical Rambo that the antis want to portray, are more likely to be looking out for their own individual safety and that of their families, anyway, and probably won't even engage the shooter unless absolutely necessary.

a reply to: buster2010

Could you share some sources to back that claim up? Im not finding any.

a reply to: Toseekthetruth

No. I've never been in a mass shooting event. That's one of the reasons I'm not going to sit here and say how I'd act under those circumstances. Until you are actually present in such a situation you DON'T know how you'd react. I'd like to say that with my military knowledge I'd be able to react sanely, but I don't know.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't care what your opinion on those of us who carry firearms on a daily basis--even with your rancid opinion of us, I'd still do what I could to save you if you were in that situation.

I don't have a rancid opinion of you... Don't put words in my mouth. I'm pro-2nd amendment buddy. I just don't think firing into a crowd of people to stop a mass shooter is a good idea. Stick to the topic and don't discuss me please.

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What if they fire one shot that stops the mass shooter?

It's possible, but what do you think is more likely?

Look, we can argue 'what ifs' all day and can conjure up all sorts of best and worst case scenarios. If someone makes a mistake, then you prosecute that individual. I don't think you strip the right and ability of everyone to protect themselves.

Do you honestly think that that is how things would play out if a return shooter hit an innocent bystander?

We are living in an era when it is EXACTLY the reason We The People have our Second Amendment. We, indeed, may have to use it to the fullest. For you folks that don't feel comfortable with a firearm and don't want to take the steps to understand how to use them safely....oh well....hopefully you have a friend or two that get it.

originally posted by: misskat1
a reply to: buster2010

Could you share some sources to back that claim up? Im not finding any.

Can you back up the claim that you made?

originally posted by: queenofswords
We are living in an era when it is EXACTLY the reason We The People have our Second Amendment. We, indeed, may have to use it to the fullest. For you folks that don't feel comfortable with a firearm and don't want to take the steps to understand how to use them safely....oh well....hopefully you have a friend or two that get it.

You may want to brush up on your second amendment. It says a well regulated militia has the right to bear arms. The second also doesn't imply that every person can run around acting like Wyatt Earp.

originally posted by: Christosterone
I couldn't agree more...I have been against concealed handgun licenses for the exact reasons you articulated...
Joe blow vigilante should not be allowed to carry a killing machine in his waistband because he took a 6 hour class...and don't get me started on the fact that come January 1 people in Texas will be allowed to wear open guns like the freaking Wild West..

Okay, here we go.

Do you talk to many people who undergo training (the class is just a formality to teach about safety and state handgun laws and prove efficiency at firing your weapon) and pay the cost in order to licensed to carry a concealed weapon? I'm thinking that you haven't, because your caricature description of what the average CCDW person is couldn't be more laughable.

Carrying a weapon on a daily basis is not some joyous occasion to extend my manhood or make me feel tough--I do it because there is a dramatic loss of respect for human life in the world, and I'll be damned if I find myself and/or my family in a situation where I could have done something to save a life if only I had a firearm.

But that doesn't mean that I view the act of taking a human life--even in self-defense or in the defense of my family or home--lightly. I have respect for human life. I have empathy for peoples' families and friends. I have sympathy for the "why" behind the reason many people turn to a life of crime. But, I have zero tolerance for someone who thinks that threatening or attempting to cause me harm that could result in my death is an okay thing to do. And I will act accordingly.

I will concede, however, that I'm most likely better trained than the average CCDW permit holder--I was in the military, I frequent the range for target practice, I study a martial art (sort of...more like a combat fighting system) that teaches gun and knife defenses AND teaches tactical, high-stress shooting techniques with live rounds on live ranges. But I study that fighting system (Krav Maga) in hopes that I never have to use my firearm to take someone's life.

It's like I tell my son--I hope that the rounds that are in my EDC (Every Day Carry) weapon's magazine and chamber will be with me for life, because I never want to have to shoulder the burden of taking a life, no matter how justified it would be in the eyes of the law.

But if it ever came down to that, I would not hesitate, and if it came down to me being in the same movie theater as you and I could save your life, I'd do it in a heart beat.

And while most CCDW permit holders might not go to the extent of taking combat pistol classes or the like, I can pretty much guarantee you that if they carry their weapon every day, the vast majority regularly train for proficiency with their weapon and know the laws of the state concerning said weapon. We don't take the responsibility of carrying a deadly weapon lightly, and when threads like this rear their ugly heads, it's safe to say that the OP is full of ignorance and vitriol on a topic about which they know very little.

Oh, and there's nothing wrong with Open Carry laws. I bet that you'll see very little change in your daily life. I live in KY, and open carry is legal, and you rarely see anyone with a pistol openly displayed on your hip. There's tactical logic behind why it's better to carry concealed than open../.

******if movies simply instituted metal detectors it would (probably) solve my issue...as I only plan on carrying to the movies with my wife so we can watch films with at least the thought we will have a fighting chance if a psychopath decides to start shooting

Just remember that there are back entrances to every theater--Holmes knew that very well in Aurora. A metal detector at the main entrance would do nothing to someone hell-bent on destruction. Hell, they'd just shoot up the lobby, instead, if that were the case.