Here we see a leftist threatening violence against a law abiding citizen. Your internet tough guy act is impressive. Anyone driving a vehicle on the street would be just as great a threat to your family. A concealed semiautomatic handgun would be an equivalent.
No, I do not have a specific example (other than the near-miss at the Gabby Giffords mass shooting), but I would be highly surprised if that hasn't happened given the number of times CHL holders have killed innocent people not holding a gun because they misinterpreted their motivations.
Reminded me of the NPR story I heard this morning. Two things struck me as relevant, which I've bold-faced. One, this guy stood up to a shooter, but told him to drop his weapon before firing, so that's an anecdote that they aren't all shoot-first types. The second, though, is that some criticize him for not shooting on sight. In this case, the guy made a wrong decision and got paralyzed. And when you put out there a bunch of good guys with guns, you're putting a lot of faith into people's ability to make the right decision in a very high-stakes, fast-paced, foggy situation. The guy walking into a store with an AR-15 was smart to put a note in his pocket because it's quite possible that some good guy with a gun could have made a wrong decision. http://www.npr.org/2013/01/29/170456129/armed-good-guys-and-the-realities-of-facing-a-gunman [rquoter] Armed 'Good Guys' And The Realities Of Facing A Gunman by Martin Kaste January 29, 2013 4:00 AM As the nation ponders how to stop the next mass shooting, the gun rights movement offers a straight-forward formula, laid out famously by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said last month, as his group responded to the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. One Man's Story In Washington state, one such "good guy" — a private citizen who drew his gun in defense of others — paid a heavy price. Dan McKown is a comedian. He used to do stand-up, and he has a performer's habit of always being just a little bit "on." He always has a joke ready — even when he's recalling the moment he locked eyes with a mass shooter. It was 2005, at the Tacoma Mall in Washington state. McKown had been chatting with friends when gunshots rang out. Everyone hid; but McKown had a pistol. For years, he'd carried a legal concealed weapon, with the thought that someday he'd protect others. Now it seemed that moment had come. Gun drawn, McKown scanned for the shooter. But the gunshots stopped. Unsure what had happened, McKown tucked his pistol back under his coat — just as the shooter walked right in front of him. "So anyway, I'm standing there like Napoleon Bonaparte, with his hand, you know, in his jacket," he recalls. "So I said, 'Young man, I think you need to put your weapon down.' " That moment of vulnerability gave the other guy just enough time to shoot McKown. The bullet hit his spine, and he found himself unable to aim his own gun. "I prayed the most un-Christian prayer of my life, which was: 'God, please let me shoot this guy before he kills somebody else.' Because I was sure I was dead," McKown says. "Then he hit me again, again, again. And he spun me like a pinwheel." 'Lethal Force Now' So what did McKown do wrong? At the time, that was a hot topic among concealed-carry advocates. Some said he should have stayed behind cover. Others said his mistake was drawing against someone who was already pointing a gun at him. At a shooting range in Bellevue, Wash., a company called InSights trains civilians to prepare for "active shooter" situations. Instructor John Holschen thinks McKown may have been a victim of his own sense of fair play — especially when he gave that verbal warning. "The right thing to do tactically in that situation, legally in that situation, and morally in that situation," he says, "is end the shooter's ability to keep shooting. And that means apply lethal force now." InSights offers classes like "Tactical Handgun" and "Advanced Confrontation Simulations." But most gun owners never get this kind of training. In fact, in some states — like Washington — a concealed-carry permit requires no training at all. And that's why the prospect of armed civilian "good guys" can make police uneasy. "Good intentions don't get you to the justifiable and safe end point," says assistant chief Jim Pugel, a 30-year veteran of the Seattle Police Department. He doesn't oppose responsible gun ownership, but Pugel says civilians need to understand what it takes to use one in public. "The ability to safely handle and use a gun in a lawful manner is a perishable skill," he says. "If you don't practice on a regular basis, psychologically, physiologically, you will likely not respond properly." Buying Time But cops can also recognize the potential value of armed "good guys" — particularly in emergencies involving a madman. "What you want to do is interrupt their thought process," says Mark Lomax, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association. "Once you interrupt their thought process, then it buys time." Lomax says that in active shooter situations, the old rule was to secure the location and wait for SWAT. "Well, in Columbine they waited for like 45 minutes, and in the meantime, numerous kids were shot and killed," he says. "So, post-Columbine, they looked at it and said, 'We cannot wait.' " Police now believe an early challenge, even an unsuccessful one, by a cop or a civilian — can rattle a mass shooter. It can push him to a different course of action. And that brings us back to Dan McKown, shot five times, lying on the floor of the Tacoma Mall. "At the time, I thought that I screwed up," he says. "And that I failed." But maybe he didn't. Because right after the confrontation, the shooter stopped spraying bullets. He ducked into a store and took hostages, and eventually gave himself up. No one was killed in that incident, but seven people were wounded, and McKown's injuries were the worst. Today he's in a wheelchair and lives with excruciating pain. But he doesn't sit around asking, "Why me?" "When people say, 'Why me?' — well, in my case, I know the answer: I went after a guy with a gun," McKown says. It's not a course of action he recommends for everybody, but McKown says it's a choice he does not regret.[/rquoter]
Let's be clear, I'm not arguing the dude in the original story here was smart to do what he did, just that I don't buy into this myth being perpetuated right now that the people carrying guns in this country are overzealous cowboys who are itching for an opportunity to shoot someone.
Since you focused on me a lot, I just want to say I don't feel that way at all. I just think if you try to arm everyone, you're going to get your overzealous cowboys to use your parlance.
I'm a Liberal, not a Leftist. Specifically, a New Deal nationalist Liberal. I'm not an Internet tough guy. That is exactly what I would do in real life if I was with my daughters. And when I have seen an obviously drunk driver I have taken action, including intentionally blocking traffic behind the moron and reaching through an open window to take a drunk guy's keys at a stop sign... which was not dangerous as the guy had passed out by the time I got to the window.
There is no myth that all people carrying guns are overzealous. There is conjecture that some people carrying guns are overzealous. That conjecture is supported by fact - see Trayvon, see mass shootings, etc. It doesn't mean there isn't a majority of gun carriers that aren't overzealous, or that there aren't many justified shootings by overzealous or normally zealous gun carrying folks... just that there are overzealous gun carriers out there, and as RM95 points out, if this happens enough, eventually one of these morons is going to get shot and killed and will have failed to make any point while ruining multiple people's lives. Laws exist often based on the need to "control" the minority, not to manage the majority law abiding folk. I believe this often forgotten in the gun control debate. "Well most gun owners are [x,y,z]" or "Responsible gun owners [lock up their guns], etc., etc.". We shouldn't let the actions of the non law abiding among us rule the way we live or impact our rights that we truly want to protect, but clearly if most gun owners became all gun owners there wouldn't be the need for discourse on this issue.
Uh huh, I doubt it. The point of my post was the guy came off sounding like an ass because a few kids don't have it figured out.
So when you see the guy carrying an AR-15, walking into the store where your shopping with your family, you'll assume he's just a Tea Party Patriot getting his 2nd amendment on, right up until he starts mowing people down. I think I'll be a little more proactive in protecting my wife and daughter.
By the way, I hope these nut jobs keep this **** up, because they could hardly make a better case for stricter gun control.
was the man with the AR-15 drunk? It's a rare thing to see so I would probably be wary (not sure how you "holster" an AR-15 but that should be a requirement for open carry), but effectively it's no different than a semiautomatic pistol (just better accuracy and less kick).
So from other stories posted in this thread [post 7 & 23], seems old kids/young adults are the people behind the topic. Hell, all these mass shootings are involving highschoolers/college kids. Columbine, Gaby Gifford, Aurora, VTech, Lone Star college down the street & the recent school in CT. The things making the news don't happen to be a true reflection of our society though in my opinion. Only isolated outliers. Sorry to come across like an ass, in my experience though it is this age bracket that seems to like to 'push the envelope' to make a point like this jerk is making. Think James O'Keefe. That or they have no responsibilities/aka kids yet so recklessness is never thought of. I just happen to take the news with a grain of salt involving stories & people this age. That's all.
Most of these kids live with one or no parents, and are taking medications recommended by experts which have severe and permanent side effects to the brain. Why not blame their parents for abandoning them, allowing easy access to firearms which their kids know they have, or the doctors and guardians that put these kids on prescription drugs which have only been around for a few decades. Some doctors and psychs know how detrimental the effects of these prescription drugs can be to one's brain and health and they continue to force them onto kids. It's mostly because public school teachers don't want to deal with these kids, so they push parents to medicate these kids. I proposed a solution earlier and suggested parents who have kids with these disorders pretty much can't own firearms, but that would only make them feel more like outcasts and be more inclined to doing these acts if they get a hold of a gun.
I'm with you all the way. Making the news, pushing the envelope, acting out video games ect gives these kids the opportunity for their 15 min of fame. It seems to come back to guns lately when it unfairly should be about everything else. IMO.
So, based on what I have read over the last few weeks, if the dude walks in to the store with his AR15, to legally demonstrate his 2nd amendment rights, and I fear for my safety, and the safety of my family, I'm good to shoot him on sight, right?
Yet you saw fit to crank out several posts essentially defending what the fool did. Fascinating. Look, I actually support gun ownership, but idiots like the guy you are making excuses for, as well as the lunatics that are big wheels in the NRA, who are busy babbling their own incomprehensible bull****, simply give impetus to far more severe gun ownership and carrying restrictions than the ones currently being seriously discussed by the President and many members of Congress, not to mention huge numbers of Americans. It should be illegal to do what that chump did. Period. Cry about his "right" to do so until Hell freezes over, but no one should be allowed to saunter into a grocery store carrying a semi-automatic rifle, or any rifle. It should be illegal to do so. There should be strong restrictions, national restrictions, against traipsing into malls, grocery stores, any store not having a direct relationship to purchasing guns and ammo. Like I said, this is coming from someone who supports gun ownership, but I'm just sick to death of this crap, and I'm sick of otherwise intelligent people attempting to defend actions like this. It is beyond the pale.
I strongly support the Second Amendment, especially having traveled and lived over seas. However this idiot is almost taunting people. The ongoing debate is bringing the crazies out and I fear another major tragedy will happen soon.
You would basically attack a stranger . . . as a preventative measure I am not sure that is wise. . . .prudent . . .or a good thing. Rocket River
