PDA

View Full Version : Colorado Shooting - for gun-phobes


Runscott
07-25-2012, 11:56 AM
David Brooks recently wrote an op-ed (New York Times) that does a decent job of countering the call for gun-control, and also the position of some of you that we should turn a blind eye to mental illness and focus on executions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/opinion/brooks-more-treatment-programs.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks

Runscott
07-25-2012, 03:12 PM
lol - this is what happens to water cooler topics when you do not put them in the vintage baseball card forum :)

But I refuse to revisit that clusterfvck of a thread.

tiger8mush
07-26-2012, 02:44 PM
Hi Scott, unfortunately your link above doesn't work for me.

My general thoughts:

1) i'm in favor of SOME gun control, but believe in general that guns should be allowed
2) we shouldn't turn a blind eye to mental illness
3) we should execute this guy

Where do i draw the line? i don't know. but this was planned over many months. He was sane enough to do this stuff secretly and not get arrested beforehand. We can't do 110% background check on every person that looks/acts weird. If every person that commits a crime gets mental treatment and put on drugs in order to function normally, we'll soon be an entire nation on drugs in order to function how society or the gov't wants us to function. I know, I exaggerate, and I blabber on, and at times i may be non-sympathetic, but if you have urges to do mass destruction over many months and don't get your fix by just playing video games or maybe paintball, and then you act upon them, you aren't fit for a free society. Some people can be & should be helped. Not this guy. So are we gonna use him like a guinea pig now and see what meds over the next 25 years will help or hurt him? Or can we just end his life for the 71 people he directly injured/killed and countless others whose lives he's shattered for losing loved ones?

BTW, just to keep blabbering on, where will the money come from to do MORE mental illness checks and tests and drug treatments? More taxes? Or maybe less money spent on foreign wars (yes I'm a Ron Paul fanboy) so that we CAN put more money into helping our own country first?

(I know its tough to read to read internet postings, but all of my words are meant to be very humble and open for calm debate - I'm a rational person that can be reasoned with :))

Runscott
07-26-2012, 04:09 PM
Hi Scott, unfortunately your link above doesn't work for me.

My general thoughts:

1) i'm in favor of SOME gun control, but believe in general that guns should be allowed
2) we shouldn't turn a blind eye to mental illness
3) we should execute this guy

Where do i draw the line? i don't know. but this was planned over many months. He was sane enough to do this stuff secretly and not get arrested beforehand. We can't do 110% background check on every person that looks/acts weird. If every person that commits a crime gets mental treatment and put on drugs in order to function normally, we'll soon be an entire nation on drugs in order to function how society or the gov't wants us to function. I know, I exaggerate, and I blabber on, and at times i may be non-sympathetic, but if you have urges to do mass destruction over many months and don't get your fix by just playing video games or maybe paintball, and then you act upon them, you aren't fit for a free society. Some people can be & should be helped. Not this guy. So are we gonna use him like a guinea pig now and see what meds over the next 25 years will help or hurt him? Or can we just end his life for the 71 people he directly injured/killed and countless others whose lives he's shattered for losing loved ones?

BTW, just to keep blabbering on, where will the money come from to do MORE mental illness checks and tests and drug treatments? More taxes? Or maybe less money spent on foreign wars (yes I'm a Ron Paul fanboy) so that we CAN put more money into helping our own country first?

(I know its tough to read to read internet postings, but all of my words are meant to be very humble and open for calm debate - I'm a rational person that can be reasoned with :))

Thank you very much for posting. A lot of what follows is repeats of what I've posted previously, but I can tell from your response that you missed quite a bit of that - understandably, as it was long-winded, as is the following.

Until you've had direct involvement with mental illness, you're not going to understand that "sane enough" does not mean you are in your right mind. I've tried to rebut such comments several times, and no one on the board has gotten it - to them, if someone is able to think straight, then they are sane, which is not necessarily true. But I'll briefly try. Try to imagine that one day you are functioning with someone else's mind, but you still think it's your own, because it's basically an altered reality. It's a bad mind - still has all your basic intelligence, but now you are MORE creative, think FASTER...and are very angry (anger is the key ingredient to manic attacks for young men in their '20s). Then you get your mind back. You're astounded and embarrassed at anything you did while operating with this 'different' mind. Fortunately, you and others will generally get what you would like without worrying too much about lethal injection, as the person will generally commit suicide once they realize what they have done. So, a great ending that's nice and clean, and no one has to concern themselves about dealing with the unpleasantness of mental illness. I am not saying that this is the diagnosis for the Colorado killer, but based on what you (and others) have written, if it WERE the diagnosis, you'd still go for a quick execution.

I find the following statement very curious: "where will the money come from to do MORE mental illness checks and tests and drug treatments?". Funding comes after public awareness. There is currently no worthwhile public awareness. If there were, you'd find the money - the 'pool' would simply be reallocated. It's not like building a new baseball stadium.

You would probably have to take money from something really important such as war, and apply it to something very unpleasant, that no one wants to think about (much easier to label people as evil or angry).

But here's an example: what if people all of a sudden became aware that a new disease (we'll call it AIDS) was killing lots of people? Well, anti-gays would refuse to support it because it doesn't affect them directly, and there is a stigma associated with gay sex (yeah, just like the stigma associated with mental illness). They' say "let them take care of it - they brought it on themselves". Then let's say that the anti-gays found that this disease was affecting THEM and their CHILDREN. All of a sudden, this new public 'awareness' would result in money being found.

Up through the '70s, the mentally ill were considered a nuisance or a danger, and were locked up in institutions to protect the sane - not to help the patients. That was a problem, but like retirement homes, provided a convenient places for family members to dump their burdensome loved ones, so it all worked out for everyone...except the mentally ill. Releasing them to the streets was NOT a good solution, but we found that most of them mixed in well with the bums and drug addicts, and it didn't affect us directly, so we were generally okay with Reagan's solution.

The good news for you is that you don't have to help fund as many institutions - YEA!!! The bad news is that you have to deal with those bothersome schizophrenics on the streets :(, but at least they aren't costing you much. Wait - I forgot about the repeated 72-hr observations at the hospital, the drugs and alcohol they use to self-medicate on the streets, the constant arrests...I guess they are costing you money. I apologize personally for their behavior, but you should thank me for loving my family member and keeping them out of your hair, fighting the system the entire way. In my own personal case, I am positive that it would have been cheaper for you ('you' representing Joe Taxpayer), if there had been more funding. In almost all circumstances, fixing a problem BEFORE it manifests itself is cheaper to everyone than fixing it after the fact.

But more funding would require 'Public awareness' that it would actually help society to do more research, have more psychiatric facilities and doctors, education for policemen and jailers, court systems with the ability to 'judge' the mentally ill without the ignorance that they currently operate under. But again, all of this would require that your own family members (and those of countless other Americans) be affected directly by mental illness - that's the kick in the ass that has to happen. Hopefully that doesn't happen to you or your loved ones. Catch-22

Thanks for reading this. I realize that it's still easier to ignore such problems, and honestly, I ignored it for years while living in the nice sane suburbs. But it has been tougher over the last 6 years, as there are annoying crazy people all around me in downtown Seattle. Now that it's hit my family, I know that they are also human beings, but trying to survive without the comfort of the nice, clean, well-functioning brain that you and I possess. Some of them could be helped, but only if they have advocates to push them down that road, and only if they have places to get treatment and people to diagnose them. As long as they are just 'crazy' people, they are screwed. More funding would mean fewer of them on the streets, and more of them at home with their families, functioning like you - not doing drugs, working jobs, PAYING TAXES :), but most importantly - living the best lives they possibly can, which every human being deserves.

tiger8mush
07-26-2012, 05:28 PM
I agree, its something you don't think much about until it involves you. There are so many subects that can be included in that statement though, like spousal abuse and drug addiction and cancer treatment and alcohol abuse etc. I think the afformentioned get more $ allocated from the gov't than mental institutions because there is more awareness and more people afflicted with those illnesses/symptoms. I would chose to fund ALL of those programs, including mental institutions, over funding war and probably 1/2 of the other stuff that the gov't spends money on. I'm all for a reallocation of our tax money. But politicians have power and in order to keep their power they put money where the lobbyists (who give the politicians money) want them to put it, and the tax dollars don't end up in the areas that I feel they should be.

I'll stop w/the political rant as I really don't know what I'm talking about anyway :)

I haven't had direct involvement w/mental illness and I'm sure I'd feel differently if I did. Although, my mom is bi-polar and we believe my brother is. My mom takes medication and doesn't work because of her illness. I'm definiltely not as sympathetic to her as I should be.

I guess I'm willing to help those who want to be helped. Who aren't looking for handouts and who want to better themselves etc. How do you separate those from people who are just mean/lazy/criminals?

I'm sympathic to your cause, Scott. Its good that you are raising awareness for the mentally ill and helping your loved ones. If there is a worthy cause/organization that you specifically favor, I'm willing to donate to it, please let me know the info.

In the particular case of Holmes, while its certainly possible he is temporarily ill or what-not (I don't know cuz I don't have the time/energy/desire to look into this subject specifically, so I resort to making uneducated statements like I've made in most of my posts), its just hard to believe that our society would help this person and he'd one day be able to be a contributing member of society without something like this happening again. Not given what he's done. He didn't flip out and beat up an ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend or go haywire cuz his professor gave him a bad grade or have road rage. This is something that took many days of planning and he had a lot of time in between to come out of his insanity and realize that he was planning to hurt a lot of people.

Rob
:)

Runscott
07-26-2012, 06:22 PM
I agree, its something you don't think much about until it involves you. There are so many subects that can be included in that statement though, like spousal abuse and drug addiction and cancer treatment and alcohol abuse etc. I think the afformentioned get more $ allocated from the gov't than mental institutions because there is more awareness and more people afflicted with those illnesses/symptoms. I would chose to fund ALL of those programs, including mental institutions, over funding war and probably 1/2 of the other stuff that the gov't spends money on. I'm all for a reallocation of our tax money. But politicians have power and in order to keep their power they put money where the lobbyists (who give the politicians money) want them to put it, and the tax dollars don't end up in the areas that I feel they should be.

This is all perfectly understandable, and as it should be. I'm the same regarding all the programs you mentioned. Another wrench in the mix is that for each of those, the 'victims' begin crusading after they recover (or as they don't recover), but with mental illness, the ill who 'recover' prefer to get on with their lives and sort of pretend they never had it; i.e- best case is they take the lithium willingly and tell their family to quit talking about it.

Funding won't come until their is more public awareness. What I was hearing in that thread was BAD public awareness, which is even worse than none at all.


I'll stop w/the political rant as I really don't know what I'm talking about anyway :)

I haven't had direct involvement w/mental illness and I'm sure I'd feel differently if I did. Although, my mom is bi-polar and we believe my brother is. My mom takes medication and doesn't work because of her illness. I'm definiltely not as sympathetic to her as I should be.

My guess is that if your brother or mother had had a first manic break and killed someone (even planned it), then came down from the mania and was grief-stricken, you would want him to get treatment, as opposed to a lethal injection. But you might also believe that what I'm describing is impossible.


I guess I'm willing to help those who want to be helped. Who aren't looking for handouts and who want to better themselves etc. How do you separate those from people who are just mean/lazy/criminals?

Good luck finding such people. Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia affect the part of the brain that gives insight - this means that such people are incapable of knowing that they have an illness. Sounds weird, but I have been through it and promise you that is the case. Since schizophrenics never have insight that they are ill, they almost never want to be helped. Bipolar people don't want help while in the mania, and when out they either want to takes meds or want to be left alone.

How do you separate them? You have to educate yourself on the difference - there are plenty of books and websites.


I'm sympathic to your cause, Scott. Its good that you are raising awareness for the mentally ill and helping your loved ones. If there is a worthy cause/organization that you specifically favor, I'm willing to donate to it, please let me know the info.


It's not a cause yet. I'm just a family member who is recovering from shock. Thanks for your offer - if/when I find something, I'll post here. This is a very recent experience for my family.


In the particular case of Holmes, while its certainly possible he is temporarily ill or what-not (I don't know cuz I don't have the time/energy/desire to look into this subject specifically, so I resort to making uneducated statements like I've made in most of my posts), its just hard to believe that our society would help this person and he'd one day be able to be a contributing member of society without something like this happening again. Not given what he's done. He didn't flip out and beat up an ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend or go haywire cuz his professor gave him a bad grade or have road rage. This is something that took many days of planning and he had a lot of time in between to come out of his insanity and realize that he was planning to hurt a lot of people.

Rob
:)

He is an extreme example, regardless of his mental state - murders like this, that are this well-planned and evil, and where the perpetrator makes no attempt to escape, or not common. Also, if manic, he might not have had enough time to come out of his insanity - manic breaks (schizophrenia and bipolar disorder both typically begin with one) can last for months, or even a year. If the person simply goes manic and is angry or vengeful, people who meet him during that phase will think that's just his personality. They do not all go psychotic (schizoaffective disorder).

But I understand your feelings. My experience was the same, even as I watched it happening. You try to reason with the ill person, appealing to his 'old brain' and how it thought. It just doesn't work. Then you wait for them to come down and understand what they are saying and doing, but nothing short of medication will speed up that process.

If Holmes were indeed in a manic state and someone close to him had noticed the personality change, and they had been AWARE of what mental illness is and how to deal with it (this is where the lack of public awareness is such a problem), they could have tried to get him to a psychiatrist and to take meds, which could have brought him down early on. Unfortunately, it seldom works that way. Generally what happens is that if lucky, a family member notices the change, is unable to get the person to get treatment, and simply follows them around until the illness manifests itself as a direct danger to the person or others, at which time they can try to get them committed involuntarily to a hospital for 72-hr observation. But this all hinges on family members recognizing the signs of mental illness and then understanding that they personally can't do much without medication.

thedutymon
07-26-2012, 06:41 PM
Afternoon,

Living here in Colorado (Small Mountian Town about 200 miles from Denver/Aurora) I am deeply saddened by being the Countrywide Headline for another one of these senseless tragadies........Period!!

But the gist of the problem we have here is included in my above sentence. The problem IS the Media. If NO and I mean NO mention was made from Moment One of who was the Perpretrator of this incident we would see a drastic reduction in these type of incidents. And if the guy was knealt down in the parking lot and a Bullet put behind his ear, that would be another deterent.

I am so sick and tired of hearing the Gun Debate....I personally own 35-40 Rifles, Pistols, and Shotguns and if I was to count up all my stashes around my property I probably have 40-50,000 rounds for all the different weapons.
Now you probably know where I stand on the whole Gun Control issue........
Wrong Keemosabee........I believe that we need more Gun Laws and we need to get the guns out of the hands of Idiots!!

I used to live in Denver and even did a stent in Aurora and made a descision to move to the mountains because I wanted to raise my kids without fear of Gangs and City crime. Thank all that be I did!

Until the ownership of guns is made the provenance of Law abiding citizens. How do we accomplish that, lots of different ways. As was discussed, make it harder for Wacko's to buy them. Do a background check that encompasses the Mental Health industry, any Flags form them, no gun until they get clearance!!! Increase the penalties for possesion of an Unregistered weapon. Pick up your local Crip with an Unregistered Handgun and give him 10 years and make him do 10 years. Couple times of this he's in his 40's and not much of a worry about anymore.

Make it easier for Law abiding citizens who complete a Safety and Shooting course to get Concealed carry's. I have mine, if I would have been at that movie, that MF'er would have killed at least a few less or I'd be Dead!!! Enough of us get walking around bearing arms and the Criminals have to start worry'ing about that aspect of the Crime there committing, crime goes down, its been proven!!!!

Lots of other things could be done..............But the biggest issue is the 24/7 Ruthless/Sickening/BloodSucking/ NEWS MEDIA..........Don't allow them to Glorify these incidents and I can tell you what will happen....They will slow to a trickle.

The Headline should be "A Deranged Guman heretofore to be known as A##Hole #3 shot and killed 9 people at a local school today, The Gunman is in Custody and we will update with informnation about the Victims. The Gunman WILL NOT BE IDENTIFIED out of common decency for the Victims of this tragedy"

That's how you stop this crap.....................All they want is there 15 minutes of Fame!!!

Out

Neil

Runscott
07-26-2012, 07:23 PM
.................All they want is there 15 minutes of Fame!!!

Neil, there is no getting around sensationalizing news. Most people crave it or we wouldn't have it. And it's actually getting worse - look at all the reality t.v. shows. Now that's a real load of crap and a horrid statement as to where our society is heading. Look at the video games - blood and guts gets us off.

So, basically, don't look for the media to downplay these incidents.

As far as "15 minutes of fame", I have no idea if that's what motivated Holmes, but I doubt it. Is it what will motivate potential copycat killers? Perhaps.

I used to go to the movie theater in question - my girlfriend (who I later married) lived off Mississippi, near the theater. My parents lived in Littleton and my brother and sister went to high school near the Columbine massacre. But none of that would cause a second's hesitation when I make decisions about how I live my life. Both of those incidents were horrid tragedies that life is full of. I also don't hide during storms out of fear that lightning will strike me.

We have been executing and imprisoning murderers forever, and I always hope that the punishments will deter future violence, but it doesn't. When some estranged parent murders his children after visitation, it isn't about "15 minutes of fame" - it's about an angry, distraught, depressed, 'crazy' person at the end of his rope, acting in a way that makes no sense to anyone but himself. Copycat killers are found mostly in the movies. I suspect it's the same for Holmes. He's still alive, so we will find out at some point.

Meanwhile, I plan to see 'Batman' tomorrow, even though our theaters don't post policemen outside.

thedutymon
07-27-2012, 01:56 PM
Neil, there is no getting around sensationalizing news. Most people crave it or we wouldn't have it.

So, basically, don't look for the media to downplay these incidents.

As far as "15 minutes of fame", I have no idea if that's what motivated Holmes, but I doubt it. Is it what will motivate potential copycat killers? Perhaps.

.

Afternoon,

I respectively disagree with you on several points. Without infringing on 1st amendment rights which I firmly believe in I do not see it out of the realm of a reasonable and prudent society in a time of escalating crises as it pertains to these shootings to come to an agreement to self censor, whether that is through mandate or reasonable corporate citizenry is up to the people. That means the top tier Networks, Web News sites ect.; That this would not stop all reporting is inherently understood, But if Joe the Frickin' Idiot was not bombarded with it 24/7 glorifying the Name of the perpetrator on TV for Days/Weeks after an incident like this I firmly belive these type of incidents would be slowed at least. Especially the easily led/influenced Teens/School incidents.

And I disagree with your take on this type of person that is "it's about an angry, distraught, depressed, 'crazy' person at the end of his rope". What we have done in our society with the MEDIA is train this individual to do is exactly what happens, Pick up a Gun and plan a mass killing, not seek mental health help or some other sort of assistance or simply live with it as was done for most of the 20th century. No instead its about the Glory, whether you want to see it or not, the Wackos who don't blatantly do it for the Glory (Such as Kliebolt & Harris), do it because we have taught them that this is the way to react to their situation. Where in the He!! do you think these dipwads come up with the idea to react in the manner they do? The Fruckin' Media...That's where!!!

And once again another Big Deterrent of this type of behavior as my Man Ted said yesterday, Arm the innocent citizens and I guarantee you this Crap will stop!!!

YeeHah!!

Neil

nolemmings
07-27-2012, 02:53 PM
And once again another Big Deterrent of this type of behavior as my Man Ted said yesterday, Arm the innocent citizens and I guarantee you this Crap will stop!!!

Couldn't disagree more.

It is after midnight in a dark theater, with a few people walking the aisles on their way to/from the concessions in the lobby. Everyone is relaxed and having a good time. Now a guy in full body armor starts dispensing tear gas to make visibility in an already darkened venue even worse. Shots are fired. Panic ensues and people scramble in all directions. Next a gunshot is fired from a different direction--is it a white knight come to save us, or another bad guy? You draw your weapon, and there are shots from a third direction (fourth, fifth, etc--you get the idea). Who are you going to shoot at? What if one of those shooters is looking to shoot you?--after all, he doesn't know what side your are on either. Meanwhile dozens of people are running into one or more lines of fire, all the while again in the dark and smokey room with tears welling up in their/your eyes from the gas. You shoot at the right guy, even though again he is in full body armor. Whoops--why did that screaming chick run in front of your clear shot and take it in the chest? Hey, that other guy who is firing at you needs to be dealt with--better snap off a few rounds in his direction.

As I mentioned on this thread in the main forum, there was an armed citizen in Tucson coming out of the grocery when Gabby Giffords was shot. He chose not to fire because he said the chaos of the situation made him unsure of his target and worried he would hit other innocents. And he had visibility and room to maneuver. Law enforcement lauded his decision.

The Aurora movie massacre is both abhorrent and aberrant. I will take my chances that it happens so freakishly seldom that I can still go to the movies. If I walk into a theater and see anyone wearing a gun, much less several people, I am out the door. I'll be damned if I'm gonna die while you "good samaritans" and protectors of the people are trying to make me feel "safe".

vintagetoppsguy
07-27-2012, 09:28 PM
You can disagree all you want, but the facts don't lie. I can give you several examples in which a concealed handgun carrier saved lives by thwarting a multiple homicide attack. Can you give me just one example in which a concealed handgun carrier accidenatlly shot an innocent bystander in a multiple homicide attack? Just one?

Runscott
07-27-2012, 10:47 PM
And once again another Big Deterrent of this type of behavior as my Man Ted said yesterday, Arm the innocent citizens and I guarantee you this Crap will stop!!!

YeeHah!!

Neil

Really? You think Holmes would NOT have tried to kill people if he thought citizens were armed?

Okay.

Edited to add: before someone misconstrues my rebuttal to your comments to mean that I am against citizens having handguns, that's not the case at all. I'm only against them having ridiculous guns such as AK 47's. I don't think those are necessary for self-protection.

vintagetoppsguy
07-27-2012, 11:27 PM
Really? You think Holmes would NOT have tried to kill people if he thought citizens were armed?

Scott,

Did you know that every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms? Does that help answer your question?

And come on. Nobody's suggesting that citizens arm themselves with AK-47s, but a lot of states have concealed handgun laws - the two key words being concealed (kind of hard to conceal an AK) and handgun (not an AK).

In this particular case, Colorado does have a concealed handgun law, but this theatre had a no guns allowed policy which does have to be followed (by the law obiding citizens).

Edited to add: And before someone mentions Jared Loughner and the Arizona shootings, they should know the following: "Arizona law permits private business owners (or their designates) to prohibit weapons from being brought onto their property, whether signs are posted or not. Private businesses are typically non-government operated businesses such as grocery and department stores, convenience stores, laundromats, banks, office complexes, etc. Failure to obey the request can result in your arrest for trespassing. (ARS 13-1502 / ARS 13-1503)"

Runscott
07-28-2012, 11:38 AM
Scott,

Did you know that every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms? Does that help answer your question?

No, I didn't know that, but it doesn't help answer any questions involving Holmes. No, he didn't choose a target practice range to carry out his murders, or a bar with a pile of Harleys parked outside. Even if firearms were allowed in movie theaters in Colorado, it would have been a 'safe' environment for him to enter with the arsenal he brought.


And come on. Nobody's suggesting that citizens arm themselves with AK-47s, but a lot of states have concealed handgun laws - the two key words being concealed (kind of hard to conceal an AK) and handgun (not an AK).

In this particular case, Colorado does have a concealed handgun law, but this theatre had a no guns allowed policy which does have to be followed (by the law obiding citizens).

You are sort of creating a straw man here. My reference to AK-47's had to do with HOLMES. He didn't need one, and either do citizens. As I've stated before - no idea how you missed it - I'm not against citizens having guns. Do you really think that if movie theater patrons were allowed to carry hand guns, that Holmes would have chosen a different venue?


Edited to add: And before someone mentions Jared Loughner and the Arizona shootings, they should know the following: "Arizona law permits private business owners (or their designates) to prohibit weapons from being brought onto their property, whether signs are posted or not. Private businesses are typically non-government operated businesses such as grocery and department stores, convenience stores, laundromats, banks, office complexes, etc. Failure to obey the request can result in your arrest for trespassing. (ARS 13-1502 / ARS 13-1503)"

David, I haven't spent much time studying gun control. My original comments about Holmes in the other thread, were for the most part regarding comments others made about mental illness. You and I are probably of the same mindset regarding guns - not sure, but probably. Like most everything else, Americans get what Americans want - if we want handguns, we get them. If we want AK-47's, then we'll get laws that allow that.

thedutymon
07-30-2012, 04:03 PM
Couldn't disagree more.


As I mentioned on this thread in the main forum, there was an armed citizen in Tucson coming out of the grocery when Gabby Giffords was shot. He chose not to fire because he said the chaos of the situation made him unsure of his target and worried he would hit other innocents. And he had visibility and room to maneuver. Law enforcement lauded his decision.



And your entitled to your opinion as well, even if wrong. Of course you can spin this anyway you want but I never meant that I wanted every idiot in the country running around with a weapon and pulling it under any circumstance. What I Meant and want to be Clear on is a Trained and Armed citizenry makes me feel a whole lot safer than the status quo. The guy in Tuscon who chose not to fire made the right decision, as I would, and any properly Trained and "Licensed to Carry" individual should and would.

Every situation is different and putting some literary story drama spin on your argument against having weapons is as wrong as distorting the facts of any hypothetical argument. Under some circumstances Having a Gun and being able to Use it Is The Right thing to do, no ifs and or buts.

I stand by my statement, If I would have been there and felt I could make a difference, since "I Do Carry", I would have used it if possible. Then again being previously in Law Enforcement I do not depend on others to defend Myself and My Own, that is my prerogative.........Period!!!

Peace Out

Neil

thedutymon
07-31-2012, 03:10 PM
Afternoon,

Just a couple of examples where an Armed Innocent Bystander made a difference.

In April 2012 an armed Wacko walked into an Aurora Colorado Church and opened fire, killing one person. An Armed parishoner who was carrying a concealed weapon permit shot and killed the shooter.

In a 2007 incident, in Trolley Square Mall in Utah, a shooter opened fire on dozens of innocents, he was almost immeaditly pinned down by an Off Duty Police Officer who kept him immobilized until help could arrive. The responding officers put the POS out of his misery with no deaths of innocent bystanders.

And the list could go on and on !!!!

Peace Out

Neil

gnaz01
08-16-2012, 05:46 AM
Afternoon,

Just a couple of examples where an Armed Innocent Bystander made a difference.

In April 2012 an armed Wacko walked into an Aurora Colorado Church and opened fire, killing one person. An Armed parishoner who was carrying a concealed weapon permit shot and killed the shooter.



What are they putting in the water in Colorado :D