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

a reply to: VictoriaCromwell

I'm a veteran, but I also haven't kept up my military training since I left the military. I'm almost POSITIVE that my training has lapsed to the point that I cannot trust it if I were to be involved in a mass shooting situation. Hell, we didn't even TRAIN for such a situation in the military.

I agree. Not just anybody should carry. If we who choose to carry had to attend a mandatory training series that would be great.

I choose to educate myself on gun safey and go to the gun range often.

I hope other do the same.




a reply to: Thecakeisalie

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

What evidence do you have of this? If people are totally defenseless and they're being gunned down with no recourse, how could armed people able to defend themselves be worse? It's like you ignore reality in favor of political fear mongering. What proof do you have that an armed citizenry would be worse?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: misskat1

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

Yeah, but you think being completely defenseless, advertising that fact and dying with no means of self defense is a good idea! Your ideas arent so good!

originally posted by: Toseekthetruth
I agree. Not just anybody should carry. If we who choose to carry had to attend a mandatory training series that would be great.

I choose to educate myself on gun safey and go to the gun range often.

I hope other do the same.




a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I think there should be mandotory training to even get a FOID card. It's absurd how easy they are to get.

Then, there should be more training if/when someone goes for the concealed carry.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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?

Do you realize how many people own guns? If this was a problem with the gun owners of America, there would be A LOT more shootings. Isn't it interesting that you deny Islamic terror is an issue because "the majority are peaceful", yet in this case you're willing to demonize millions of people over the actions of a few individuals?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Alright, but how about those that have kept up with their training over the years? Should they be denied the chance to be heroes?

I've seen a few instances in which men who appear to be in their 70s/80s (probably WW2 vets), take down armed robbers in your country. Possibly saving lives in the process. Hell, It doesn't have to be just vets, there is a great number of retired and ex-cops in your nation who wouldn't hesitate to go after these guys.

Not aimed at you Krazysh0t, but as far as the folks in this thread saying anyone who would claim to wish to "take down" a mass shooter is nothing more than a "internet tough guy", that might be true with some, but there are those who would lay their life on the line if you were in the line of fire. Maybe you wouldn't deserve it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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?

Well, you can understand why I thought that. You said recently in a post that you are 30 yrs. old, so if your stated experience is true, that is pretty impressive for an 18 - 21 yr. old.

It's a shame you have gone limp after all your efforts. We might need your experience before it's all over.

originally posted by: VictoriaCromwell
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Alright, but how about those that have kept up with their training over the years? Should they be denied the chance to be heroes?

I've seen a few instances in which men who appear to be in their 70s/80s (probably WW2 vets), take down armed robbers in your country. Possibly saving lives in the process. Hell, It doesn't have to be just vets, there is a great number of retired and ex-cops in your nation who wouldn't hesitate to go after these guys.

Not aimed at you Krazysh0t, but as far as the folks in this thread saying anyone who would claim to wish to "take down" a mass shooter is nothing more than a "internet tough guy", that might be true with some, but there are those who would lay their life on the line if you were in the line of fire. Maybe you wouldn't deserve it.

I always know it doesn't apply to all. I'm against anecdotal evidence, always. It never applies yet people always use it.

I was simply referring to a few posters on this site.

You're absolutely right about that one!

The responsibility of simply carrying a firearm should not be take lightly. Let alone the chance of having to use your firearm someday. Training one to use it should be a mandatory concealed carry understanding. Imo.

It could be the difference between life or death of innocent lives.




a reply to: THEatsking

a reply to: Toseekthetruth

I would prefer not to get into the rights aspect of owning and carrying firearms.

However, I've seen statements similar to yours before, saying that it's a good idea for people to be trained before going off into the world armed. Many of those people say it begrudgingly, as if "well, if you're trained, I guess it's okay". Is that your position?

Or would you like to see it be a much more widespread thing, perhaps a partnership between local police departments and their communities to get as many willing people trained as possible to actually counter this problem?

There's an relic in your government called the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program), the original goal was to get every young man trained in the use of arms in anticipation of future wars, perhaps it is time to restructure and modernize that program, to deal with modern problems.

a reply to: VictoriaCromwell

Super agree!!!

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

Then why is is that 'mass shooters', and 'terrorists' NEVER target anyone that can shoot back ?

Seems to me the obvious answer is OBVIOUS.

Unlike like delusional people like this:

Boxer: ‘Sensible Gun Laws Work, We’ve Proven It in California’

originally posted by: misskat1
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]

Why are you trying to use statistics based on people that are trained to use their weapons properly to back up your claim of friendly fire by the average untrained citizen? That would be like saying a person that has driven a Prius all their life can drive a formula one car just as good as the person trained to drive it. Not to mention if you don't think the military doesn't cover up friendly fire then you know nothing about the military.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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?

Well, you can understand why I thought that. You said recently in a post that you are 30 yrs. old, so if your stated experience is true, that is pretty impressive for an 18 - 21 yr. old.

It's a shame you have gone limp after all your efforts. We might need your experience before it's all over.

I've been down this path. I was in a dark place back in 08 and up through 2013, but I've stopped listening to the doom porn about our government trying to subjugate the populace. It isn't going to happen. Therefore, it's turned my whole outlook on life around and made me a MUCH happier person. You should try it sometime. It's amazing how awesome things become when you aren't so overly paranoid all the time.

a reply to: beansidhe

I remember when many schools instituted metal detectors back in the 90s--it didn't do a thing to deter crime, only to maybe postpone it and redirect it to another site.

But no, metal detectors in a place like that wouldn't deter much of anything from someone insane enough to commit mass murder. It might, however, adjust the weapon(s) that they may use instead. But no law or security feature does much against these crazy people. In general, they've already accepted that they're going to die doing what they've chosen to do, so it doesn't matter to them.

It's just a false sense of security for the rest of us, plus a burden when things like people's belt buckles and shoes set off false alarms. They wouldn't last long, and most theaters wouldn't fork out the money for them anyhow because the odds of their theater getting shot up are astronomically tiny.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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?

Do you realize how many people own guns? If this was a problem with the gun owners of America, there would be A LOT more shootings. Isn't it interesting that you deny Islamic terror is an issue because "the majority are peaceful", yet in this case you're willing to demonize millions of people over the actions of a few individuals?

I'm not trying to demonize anything. It's not like I'm trying to ban guns or take your guns away. I just want to look more carefully at how we handle guns so that we can minimize events like this in the future. And whether you like to admit it or not, gun culture is part of that equation. After all, you cannot have a mass shooting without a gun, legal or otherwise. Is that a bad thing or something?

originally posted by: VictoriaCromwell
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Alright, but how about those that have kept up with their training over the years? Should they be denied the chance to be heroes?

There really is no way to "deny someone the chance to be a hero". CCW is legal, so if you are armed and a mass shooting happens within your vicinity, nothing is going to stop you from playing hero if you want to.

What I'm worried about is the gung ho attitude from people who think they are better trained than they really are and bite off more than they can chew. There are FAR more of those people than trained veterans who've kept up with their training.

I've seen a few instances in which men who appear to be in their 70s/80s (probably WW2 vets), take down armed robbers in your country. Possibly saving lives in the process. Hell, It doesn't have to be just vets, there is a great number of retired and ex-cops in your nation who wouldn't hesitate to go after these guys.

I have no knowledge of these events. Got any sources?

Not aimed at you Krazysh0t, but as far as the folks in this thread saying anyone who would claim to wish to "take down" a mass shooter is nothing more than a "internet tough guy", that might be true with some, but there are those who would lay their life on the line if you were in the line of fire. Maybe you wouldn't deserve it.

I'm not doubting these people exist, I'm just worried they are outnumbered by the "internet tough guys".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hey, I was just defending America.

He was thinking we all were nuts so I was trying to set the record straight.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: misskat1

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

Yeah, but you think being completely defenseless, advertising that fact and dying with no means of self defense is a good idea! Your ideas arent so good!

This is a straw man. I never said what I considered to be a good idea in lieu of not firing back, and I CERTAINLY never said anything about advertising that I was defenseless.