AZ shooting raises 2nd amendment issues (Foxnews)

#1
IPorange

IPorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
25,545
Likes
47
#1
While Some Lawmakers Talk Gun Control, Others Pack Heat - FoxNews.com

Some say this shows we need more gun control/security. Others say this shows more private citizens should carry weapons.


Obviously both sides have an argument, and I know where the the majority of volnationers stand. My only question is this: if the shooter had drawn his weapon and been shot by an armed civilian before he could kill anyone, what would people's reaction be? Remember, this is to assume that there were hypothetically no victims yet, but lethal force was met with lethal force. Would anyone be truly satisfied with that outcome, not knowing for sure what would have happened?


Also, Shuler's packin' heat:
A spokesman for Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., said the congressman who challenged Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for her spot atop the House Democratic Caucus also has a conceal and carry permit and expects to carry a gun more often.

"You never think something like this will happen, but then it does," Shuler told The Politico newspaper. "After the elections, I let my guard down. Now I know I need to have (my gun) on me. We're going to need to do a much better job with security at these events."

Read more: While Some Lawmakers Talk Gun Control, Others Pack Heat - FoxNews.com
Click to expand...
 
#2
#2
IPorange said:
While Some Lawmakers Talk Gun Control, Others Pack Heat - FoxNews.com

Some say this shows we need more gun control/security. Others say this shows more private citizens should carry weapons.


Obviously both sides have an argument, and I know where the the majority of volnationers stand. My only question is this: if the shooter had drawn his weapon and been shot by an armed civilian before he could kill anyone, what would people's reaction be? Remember, this is to assume that there were hypothetically no victims yet, but lethal force was met with lethal force. Would anyone be truly satisfied with that outcome, not knowing for sure what would have happened?


Also, Shuler's packin' heat:
Click to expand...

When the alternative is a "victim" actually has to be shot (or at least "at") then I think most would consider that a lousy trade off. I think back to the famous Dirty Harry quote about how he knew the guy he'd shot needed shooting;

"When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross."

Are there dangers? Oh yeah. If you take the class for a carry permit they go to great lengths to describe how bad things can get, criminal and civil, if you start shooting without having the situation properly assessed. When a situation really gets ugly it's a hell of a thing to have to call on lethal force but it happens. But again, what's the alternative?
 
#3
#3
I'm just not sure that would be an acceptable alternative. It's still a shootout at a government building.

I don't agree with gun control in the sense that some on the left propose it as, but these sort of incidents to make me wonder.


It is interesting that no politician has mentioned a more focused and determined response to those identified as having mental problems. His school thought he had enough of an issue to remove him. Perhaps a mental evaluation should have been more insisted upon?
 
#4
#4
IPorange said:
While Some Lawmakers Talk Gun Control, Others Pack Heat - FoxNews.com

Some say this shows we need more gun control/security. Others say this shows more private citizens should carry weapons.


Obviously both sides have an argument, and I know where the the majority of volnationers stand. My only question is this: if the shooter had drawn his weapon and been shot by an armed civilian before he could kill anyone, what would people's reaction be? Remember, this is to assume that there were hypothetically no victims yet, but lethal force was met with lethal force. Would anyone be truly satisfied with that outcome, not knowing for sure what would have happened?


Also, Shuler's packin' heat:
Click to expand...

Not sure anyone would enjoy having to take someone down. I wouldn't. Considering the tragedy, I have daughters that are 6 and 4, and if put in that difficult situation Im not gonna take the chance. The difficulty of taking a life is enormous IMO, especially when there is a degree of doubt in that type of situation, but I can't imagine taking the chance.
 
#5
#5
BeecherVol said:
Not sure anyone would enjoy having to take someone down. I wouldn't. Considering the tragedy, I have daughters that are 6 and 4, and if put in that difficult situation Im not gonna take the chance. The difficulty of taking a life is enormous IMO, especially when there is a degree of doubt in that type of situation, but I can't imagine taking the chance.
Click to expand...

There's also a chance of you hitting a passerby behind the shooter. They could be a child or a parent or whatever, too. I guess my thing is, a shooting was going to take place whether civilians were packing or not. There are inherent risks with that, no matter who is pulls the trigger.
 
#6
#6
IPorange said:
There's also a chance of you hitting a passerby behind the shooter. They could be a child or a parent or whatever, too. I guess my thing is, a shooting was going to take place whether civilians were packing or not. There are inherent risks with that, no matter who is pulls the trigger.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree. Never mentioned it being easy (referred to it being a difficult and enormous decision) to just draw and start firing. However it is also difficult to ask someone to take the chance of being the victim or a friend or relative present. Under the assumption they have a chance to prohibit it, I rather have a choice.
 
#7
#7
I suppose... But there is an element of potential "vigilante justice" that could further destabilize as many situations as it resolves.

This is certainly a tough issue.
 
#8
#8
IPorange said:
There's also a chance of you hitting a passerby behind the shooter. They could be a child or a parent or whatever, too. I guess my thing is, a shooting was going to take place whether civilians were packing or not. There are inherent risks with that, no matter who is pulls the trigger.
Click to expand...

Knowing what is behind your target is extremely important. Knowing your weapon and the ballistics of your weapon is also important. And in some cases, the two combined mean that the round won't even fully penetrate and exit the target.

That said, in this case, it is highly unlikely that even a security guard/body guard would have had the speed and presence of mind to see the guy draw, and draw and engage before the other guy engaged.

Unless of course the dude said something before he pulled the trigger. If he just pulled and started shooting, it would have been reactionary on the part of the other armed individual, and one would hope that at that point, most of the good people had decided to get down.

If they got down and out of the way, it would greatly reduce the chance of a stray round hitting a passerby. It is always a chance though. It is a chance I'd take in such an extreme situation where loss of life was not only imminent, but was occurring.
 
#9
#9
At this point it's premature to make ANY gun legislation changes based on this incident.

I heard a news report that of over 100K people with known mental health problems in AZ, only a couple thousand are in the gun registration database. (shooter dude wouldn't have been in there anyway) Why not improve the enforcement of current rules before we flip out and arm everyone or outlaw guns altogether.
 
#12
#12
volinbham said:
At this point it's premature to make ANY gun legislation changes based on this incident.

I heard a news report that of over 100K people with known mental health problems in AZ, only a couple thousand are in the gun registration database. (shooter dude wouldn't have been in there anyway) Why not improve the enforcement of current rules before we flip out and arm everyone or outlaw guns altogether.
Click to expand...

That's very fair, and really should be step ONE no matter what.
 
#15
#15
volinbham said:
At this point it's premature to make ANY gun legislation changes based on this incident.

I heard a news report that of over 100K people with known mental health problems in AZ, only a couple thousand are in the gun registration database. (shooter dude wouldn't have been in there anyway) Why not improve the enforcement of current rules before we flip out and arm everyone or outlaw guns altogether.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Iowa just made the laws more lax, though...
 
#16
#16
VOLatile said:
Agreed. Iowa just made the laws more lax, though...
Click to expand...

Most gun laws are hard to enforce. Background checks can be avoided by FTF transactions. Illegal weapons are already in abundance, and not entirely difficult to purchase.

And, those who plan on doing some grossly illegal with their firearm probably won't be deterred by the gun laws themselves.

Most gun laws that are made more "lax" are carry laws, and carry laws typically deal with those who wish to stay on the "legal" side at all times.
 
#18
#18
majestyk.jpg
 
#22
#22
fl0at said:
Most gun laws are hard to enforce. Background checks can be avoided by FTF transactions. Illegal weapons are already in abundance, and not entirely difficult to purchase.

And, those who plan on doing some grossly illegal with their firearm probably won't be deterred by the gun laws themselves.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you're right. There really is no solution.

fl0at said:
Most gun laws that are made more "lax" are carry laws, and carry laws typically deal with those who wish to stay on the "legal" side at all times.
Click to expand...

Iowa is now an open carry state, can give out an unlimited amount of carry licenses, and you can consume alcohol (with the weapon on you) up to .08... I don't see how this could be positive in any way.
 
#23
#23
VOLatile said:
Iowa is now an open carry state, can give out an unlimited amount of carry licenses, and you can consume alcohol (with the weapon on you) up to .08... I don't see how this could be positive in any way.
Click to expand...

Trust in the hands of the people is always a positive thing, if you favor less government influence on daily lives.

Is Iowa open carry legal without permit, but concealed requires permit?

The alcohol up to 0.08 is similar to Florida law, if I recall correctly.
 
#25
#25
fl0at said:
Trust in the hands of the people is always a positive thing, if you favor less government influence on daily lives.

Is Iowa open carry legal without permit, but concealed requires permit?

The alcohol up to 0.08 is similar to Florida law, if I recall correctly.
Click to expand...

Before was concealed with a permit and no alcohol consumption. Now is (open* or concealed) carry with a permit, .08 BAC, and, from what I've been told at work, no one can ask to see a permit for the weapon**.

*Open carry must have a permit if they're carrying within city limits or if it's open in a vehicle.

**We aren't allowed to at work, where we deal firearms. I've even heard from some Republicans that cops can't either, but I'm not inclined to believe that.

The alcohol consumption part is the only part that really worries me.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top