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

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: vor78

So what happens when a poorly trained gun owner fires back and ends up killing and wounding a BUNCH of people?

That never happens. Because of the gun laws which don't support open or concealed carry by citizens.

Effectively, the constituency has been defanged and the bad guys know that.

Cowards at heart, they want to inflict pain, not receive it.

Incidentally just like the authorities want it. The complicit media calls for more 'gun control' , the people are more vulnerable to being killed for that, not less.

originally posted by: buster2010

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.

And you might want to brush up on what the Supreme Court has ruled about it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's possible, but what do you think is more likely?

Neither scenario is likely. That's kind of my point. We can let our imaginations run wild with best and worst case scenarios all day.

And yes, I do believe that an armed citizen mistakenly shooting a bystander would be prosecuted to some degree, as well they should be.

a reply to: buster2010

Which claim? I can send vids of me lock and loading. lol

Not sure what you mean. I try to add links when Im trying to back up a point.

If your eluding to the claim about the friendly fire:

en.wikipedia.org...

There have been many thousands of friendly fire incidents in recorded military history, accounting for an estimated 2% to 20% of all casualties in battle.[1][2] The examples listed below illustrate their range and diversity, but this does not reflect increasing frequency. The rate of friendly fire, once allowance has been made for the numbers of troops committed to battle, has remained remarkably stable over the past 200 years.[3]

a reply to: beansidhe

Honestly, it's a pointless idea--the Aurora shooting happened because someone came in the exit door of the individual movie theater. Plus, anyone hellbent on shooting up the place would just settle for the lobby at that point.

Metal detectors, security guards, strict gun laws, gun-free zones--none of these stop anyone who is crazy enough to give their life to shoot up a place and terrorize a community. But they DO stop law-abiding people from protecting themselves at a Batman movie, or a holiday party, or a school.

25 years ago my father was in a robbery situation and a gun was put to his head because someone really wanted the money in the till..

Someone alse happened to be armed that day and just in informing the perpetrator of that fact stopped what could have been a devestating situation. You see, carrying doesn't always mean "shoot" sometimes it means "talk" and if that doesn't change the situation well, at least you have the means to defend yoyrself and others.




a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: vor78

While I agree that they should be, I also think that there are Good-Samaritan Laws in some states that absolve people from bodily harm if it is proven that they were trying to do something like help save someone's life. I'm not saying those laws would cover the hypothetical situation, but it's a possibility.

a reply to: Metallicus

I have a feeling Krazyshot is the type that would need his "safe place" if he even saw a gun...in a case...unloaded even...much less being used in its proper fashion.

a reply to: Metallicus

Please don't blame all Americans for the views of KrazySh0t. Most of us are completely sane and logical.

Lol, I like KrazySh0t, he opens up some very worthwhile discussions. I think he has a good heart.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Metallicus

I have a feeling Krazyshot is the type that would need his "safe place" if he even saw a gun...in a case...unloaded even...much less being used in its proper fashion.

originally posted by: Metallicus
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.

Would it be too much to ask for you guys to stick to the topic and not discuss me? Or are we back in elementary school now?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: vor78

While I agree that they should be, I also think that there are Good-Samaritan Laws in some states that absolve people from bodily harm if it is proven that they were trying to do something like help save someone's life. I'm not saying those laws would cover the hypothetical situation, but it's a possibility.

That's a possibility, sure, and I think you do have to look at it on a case-by-case basis, regardless. I'm only giving krazyshot the benefit of the doubt with his argument, that some armed civilian goes all John Rambo and does something exceedingly stupid that causes more damage.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Metallicus

I have a feeling Krazyshot is the type that would need his "safe place" if he even saw a gun...in a case...unloaded even...much less being used in its proper fashion.

I'm a veteran, but thanks for trying.

Suuurre you are.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: beansidhe

Honestly, it's a pointless idea--the Aurora shooting happened because someone came in the exit door of the individual movie theater. Plus, anyone hellbent on shooting up the place would just settle for the lobby at that point.

Metal detectors, security guards, strict gun laws, gun-free zones--none of these stop anyone who is crazy enough to give their life to shoot up a place and terrorize a community. But they DO stop law-abiding people from protecting themselves at a Batman movie, or a holiday party, or a school.

Metal detectors are a good idea though, because then shooters wouldn't choose that place. They're looking for easy targets where lots of people are going to be gathered together. Obviously you can't completely eliminate risk from life but it would be worthwhile thinking about some methods of limiting their opportunity?

a reply to: queenofswords

I was an E-4 Specialist in the Army from October 20, 2003 to October 20, 2006. My MOS was 13M, MLRS operator. I qualified as Sharpshooter at the M16 firing range (that means I hit 30 of the 40 targets). I served in Iraq starting June 2005 to November 2005 before I came home with an ACL tear. While there I performed convoy security by either driving the humvees or mounting the turret (a .50 calibur machine gun). I was awarded the Combat Action Badge for assisting my squad mates save a man's life when an IED went off on the convoy and the shrapnel shot through the cab of a truck and severed the man's femoral artery.

Still don't believe me? Or do you think I just made all that up on the spot?

a reply to: Bluntone22

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

Untrained gun owner returns fire.

Untrained gun owner takes the law into his own hands.

Untrained gun owner develops his own sense of justice.

Untrained gun owner targets minorities.

Untrained gun owner gets shot by cops.

originally posted by: beansidhe
a reply to: Metallicus

Please don't blame all Americans for the views of KrazySh0t. Most of us are completely sane and logical.

Lol, I like KrazySh0t, he opens up some very worthwhile discussions. I think he has a good heart.

Thanks for the support.

At least I know that I'm reaching some people... I know we don't always agree, but thanks.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
I got my first .22 muff pistol at 7 and a 20 gauge at 8....I was given a 7mm deer rifle at 10 which I used once to kill a deer and immediately realized hunting mammals was not for me...I would later extend that policy to birds and all animals for that matter

Target shooting, however, has always been an intrinsic part of my life because, as I stated, I am a Texan and guns are enmeshed in our culture....from skeets to silhouettes...

But, like you said, the average Joe doesn't possess our same acumen regarding guns...never have I wanted to carry a gun because I live in a high society of the west...the greatest country the species of humanity has ever created....

But my position has evolved and I bought a gun yesterday for the specific purpose of carrying it to protect against psychopaths bent on killing innocents...specifically at movie theatres...though incidents keep occurring that may expand my feelings on when and where I carry...

As you saw in my post I put "(probably)" in relation to metal detectors solving my issue at theatres...

I am sad that it has come to this is all..

****it goes without saying I have always had a gun in my nightstand...I am only discussing guns in terms of when I'm off my property...

-Christosterone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Metallicus

I have a feeling Krazyshot is the type that would need his "safe place" if he even saw a gun...in a case...unloaded even...much less being used in its proper fashion.

originally posted by: Metallicus
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.

Would it be too much to ask for you guys to stick to the topic and not discuss me? Or are we back in elementary school now?

They're internet tough guys. "Me tough, Me man, Me gun". Anyone who is more reasonable and less violence oriented is the idiot.


It's such a messed up part of American Culture.

Just something to add to the thread.

Are you an American? If so, it might do you good to know just how many veterans you have in your own country, the total as of 2011 was 22,658,000, with apparently 1.1 million living in California alone.

I did a little mathematics and compared that to your census numbers from 2010, and that would mean roughly 7% of your population were veterans at the time.

Considering a few of them have seen frontline combat, and most police in your country never fire a bullet and might spend a few weekends at the range, aren't they some of the best people you could hope for to be by your side in a horrific incident such as these?

With this in mind, doesn't this mean that an enormous segment of your population would range from proficient to expert in firearms, when only considering the military aspect? As well as it wouldn't necessarily be the first time these former soldiers have drawn blood in the defense of others.

Although, I suppose some people just can't understand the idea of wanting a fighting chance. Do you want to take that away from everyone just because you can't imagine yourself doing it?



My sources: ABC news veterans report., Infoplease, Census www.census.gov...