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

a reply to: vor78

See. This is how we put our heads together to find appropriate solutions to these problems instead of turning the United States into the Wild West again.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable for the sake of disagreement here. I just find Joe's idea in the OP to be an extremely poorly thought out one.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fair enough. I was hoping you weren't about to go down that road.

I've already said in this thread at least once before that I'm pro-2nd. Not sure why no one wants to believe me there...

I've seen people over the years make all sorts of claims of being pro-2A when, in reality, they only were in the barest and weakest sense. My intent was not to lump you in with that group, though. I've read enough of your posts that I actually DO believe you're solidly pro-2A, but that statement had left me wondering if I'd read you wrong in the past. That's the only reason I was asking for clarification.

"Why couldn't she just use mace?"

Come now, because an angry rapist with watering eyes who strangles you after the fact is really better.

"I think that has to do with the high restrictions placed on obtaining CCW permits, though I'm just guessing here. I haven't actually looked into it."

After some looking it appears that state is something referred to as a may issue concealed carry state, wherein you must prove that your life is actually in danger or that carrying your weapon is related to your job (security guard, bank lorry driver). By the time you've gotten the permit it could be too little too late I say.

"Yea, I think those arguments about assault weapons are dumb. For one, most gun violence in this country is done with hand guns, and for two a gun is a gun. Whether it shoots one bullet or 1 million bullets, they all kill people."

Glad we are able to agree on this, so many people are utterly insensible about it. The gun control crowd in the US can be so evangelistic about what amounts to the cosmetic aspects of firearms. It makes one think they haven't spent a day in the countryside.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: vor78

See. This is how we put our heads together to find appropriate solutions to these problems instead of turning the United States into the Wild West again.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable for the sake of disagreement here. I just find Joe's idea in the OP to be an extremely poorly thought out one.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think your concern is without some merit or that your argument has no validity. It does, to some degree. I just come down on the side that thinks the risk is outweighed by the potential reward.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You wrote: "And that's the problem we are gambling with fate by relying on an unknown person to shoot back. The situation could be cleared up rather easily, but just as easily it could spiral out of control into a much WORSE situation. You're playing with dynamite here. Wouldn't it make more sense to put our heads together and try to figure out a less risky way to defend people subjected to a mass shooting?"


We are gambling with fate by hoping that we are not attacked by an unknown person when we can't defend ourselves. Yes, it could be worse but it also could be resolved. I will not be depending on an unknown person to shoot back while people put their "heads together and try to figure out a less risky way to defend people subjected to a mass shooting." Given the speed with which committees act and Congress implements, we will be dead of old age before then, anyway.
What less risky way did you have in mind? What can possibly quickly disable a shooter that is not a return bullet? Flooding the venue with tear gas? Some evil doers will have gas masks. Tasers for all? An electro fest with all enjoying random jolts to the delight of the armored shooter. Lasers to the eyes? If everyone had a laser and could find it and direct the beams all at once, the perpetrator would be firing blindly...but still firing. When together heads have figured it out, it will be mainstream news and I will feel so much safer.

originally posted by: VictoriaCromwell
Come now, because an angry rapist with watering eyes who strangles you after the fact is really better.

So mace is NEVER an effective way to stop an assault? Rapists are always able to get a hold of you and strangle you after being blinded by pure capsaicin?

After some looking it appears that state is something referred to as a may issue concealed carry state, wherein you must prove that your life is actually in danger or that carrying your weapon is related to your job (security guard, bank lorry driver). By the time you've gotten the permit it could be too little too late I say.

Well as a resident in Maryland, I'm not too aware of many situations where someone got their CCW permit "too late" to help them from needing it.

Glad we are able to agree on this, so many people are utterly insensible about it. The gun control crowd in the US can be so evangelistic about what amounts to the cosmetic aspects of firearms. It makes one think they haven't spent a day in the countryside.

I happen to like guns.

originally posted by: misskat1
a reply to: buster2010

Oh come on you can do better than that, deflect a request for resources by pointing at mine?? If you cant make the connection between civilian friendly fire with military friendly fire, then I cant help you in the common sense department.

I'm not the one with the lack of common sense here. You are the one trying to pass off statistics of trained military personnel and saying it would be the same as civilians. People that have only been trained to shoot at paper targets will never be as good at handling situations like people that have been in combat. People's shooting ability changes when bullets are flying around and you yourself have a chance at getting killed.

a reply to: pteridine

I'm not sure yet. I don't have an answer. I do know that despite the high rate of mass shootings in the country, it certainly isn't worth it to arm yourself on a daily basis just in case one happens in your vicinity because you are VERY unlikely to ever be a participant in one.

I also think if we've waited until the person is shooting a place up, we've already waited too long anyways. We should be getting to these people BEFORE they go on a rampage. The right likes to talk about mental illness issues every time one of these events goes down, but they never actually DO anything about it. Just a bunch of lip service about how mental illness is a problem, but no actual meat and potatoes come equipped with their rhetoric. Almost like they are just using that topic as a scapegoat to distract us from talking about gun ownership.

Are these gun owners psychic?


Do they have psychic powers and know where the terrorists will strike?

In one of the millions of schools, stores, malls, in America?


More guns will add to the deaths through suicides and murders at least

I figure about 25% of any population are stunned stupid..I would be happier if that 25%(modest # im sure) did not carry even though legally entitled..problem usually is they think they are smart/qualified.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I wouldn't say it is useless for self defense, but if you're a woman who is healthy and relatively physically fit, I would posit that martial arts training could be superior to mace.

Mace also has the troubling aspect of being non-discriminatory, if the wind blows it back into your own eyes, now you're blinded and that can hamper the chances of escape.

When I say too little too late, what I mean is that if there is a direct threat to your life, even if you're trained with firearms, if your husband decides to kill you he isn't going to give you a three day waiting period to get ready for it, he's just going to do it.

If they even give it to you, as meeting the training requirements are not enough to be granted the permit, you must prove your life is in imminent danger. I think that is an arbitrary and dangerous system. If you are in imminent danger you may well not have the time to fill out paperwork.

However, if programs were put in place to create a healthy culture around arms, then perhaps such restrictions could be made redundant. I know many would scoff at it, but how many events do you hear about the Boy Scouts descending into wild west pandemonium? I think they still practice with firearms, and I would say it is generally a healthy culture for young men to participate in.

I wouldn't say as many do that the world would be a utopia if only everyone is armed, but I believe if more people are, you might well see a decrease in successful crime.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'm not sure yet. I don't have an answer. I do know that despite the high rate of mass shootings in the country, it certainly isn't worth it to arm yourself on a daily basis just in case one happens in your vicinity because you are VERY unlikely to ever be a participant in one.

It may surprise you, but I actually agree with that, too. Although I fully support the right of an individual to carry a firearm and to determine their own reasons and needs for doing so, my personal opinion is that these incidents are so statistically rare and your odds are so low of being involved in one of these situations that, on an individual basis, its not worth running out and getting a permit and a carry weapon for that specific reason.

Again, I support a person's right to do it, but its not something I, personally, would do.

a reply to: buster2010

One thing you might like to consider.

The people who commit these shootings are just as wired and panicked as any potential defender might be. Nor do they appear to be well trained.

Just look at the videos of the Paris attacks, in the one cafe, the attackers had their backs turned to those people, and that might have been an opportunity for someone to go after them. Gun or no gun.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you cannot articulate your shot, then don't pull the trigger. Otherwise, you had better be accurate because you are making yourself the perp's No.1 target. If there is armor involved, shoot for the neck/head; above the armor.

One good training drill is to place a head-shaped target at 25 feet, then draw and double-tap. Keep changing position, or spin 360º in place and repeat.

a reply to: THEatsking

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is ok.

Apparently Sherrif Joe isn't.

Funny how that works.

FYI, in Arizona you don't need a permit to carry concealed although you can still get one. You can open carry anywhere unless it is posted not to or in bars, government buildings, etc.

When representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Tucson in 2011, a CCW holder, Joseph Zamudio was one of the people that helped take down the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner. Zamudio arrived on the scene late and did not draw his weapon. I remember reading at the time that Zamudio said had he been there when the shooting started, he would have taken Loughner out which could have minimized or prevented the deaths of the six people that died.

I know very few people in Arizona that are not armed. 250,000 gun owners seems unrealistically low and the attitude about the old, but necessarily wild west still very prevalent. They might have to shoot a rattlesnake or something?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

A stupid idea from a stupid man (my opinion of Joe).

Consider that professionals such as soldiers and police spend months or years of intensive, professionally applied and repeated training, both in the mechanics of firearm handling and in the mental/emotional state surrounding such an act especially in stressful situations.

And even for those folks, in real stressful situations their accuracy goes down compared to even the simulated stressful situations of the training.

Then consider that far too many ccp bearers have about enough training on firearms to know which is the dangerous end, and that their training has almost certainly not been kept current, and you are going to have - in too many cases - some frightened person hosing the place down. No thanks.

Also, when the cops do arrive, it would probably not be all that good of an idea to have them spot you (generic "you") with a firearm in an active shooter situation. They are going to be looking for the bad guy, and the "bad guy" is somebody with a firearm. Odds are they will themselves shoot first and ask questions later. As they should in that situation.

This sounds like a wonderfully macho idea, which Joe seems to like, but I don't think it will work out as he imagines.

a reply to: Open_Minded Skeptic

What you and the other one fail to understand is that Arizonans have been doing this prior to the good sheriff saying this the other day also what's with everyone thinking that he is the sheriff of Arizona? Anyway the only reason you all are trying to make a big deal about it is because Sheriff Joe said it but not a peep about other law official who have said the same way before Joe said it.

Well, if tptb want to get rid of gun rights, this would sure be a great false flag... Have an armed Good Samaritan gun-rights advocate unleash into a crowd while trying to take out a shooter, killing even more people in the process. There goes support for "gun nuts".

Sheriff Joe said his opinion. And it is everyone else's right to determine if that opinion has a solid foundation or is weak and fear induced.