How to stop a massacre - armed citizen shoots back

Discussion in 'The Coffee Shop ~ Chit Chat' started by ChevyFan, Jul 26, 2012.

  1. the phantom

    the phantom Epic Member 5+ Years ROTM Winner 1000 Posts

    I cant say as that makes a lot of sense. So if your a felon living there you still can have a gun. They come in your house and make sure that your obeying the law and want to see your gun. what else does this allow them to look for in YOUR house. I dont know of Kennesaw, GA but it almost sounds like a gated community subject to certain terms and conditions. There has to be more to the law than just simply requiring a gun in every house.
  2. ahmitchell1

    ahmitchell1 Rockstar 4 Years ROTM Winner 1000 Posts

    Google search it and you can find all the info you want a guy even wrote a book about it. And they don't go check but since it was passed crime dropped 89%. It's a large city as well so it be impossible to check everyone, and of course felons can't own guns.
  3. SurrealOne

    SurrealOne Former Member ROTM Winner 1000 Posts

    I tend to agree that training should be mandatory. However, I only support mandatory training as long as it is inexpensive enough and readily available enough soas to be within reach of all law-abiding citizens regardless of income level, as I would not want to see our right to keep and bear arms infringed upon in such a way that only those law abiding citizens who could afford training could have firearms. All too often the people bearing the most risk live in poorer neighborhoods ... where there's an armed criminal element -- so I'd not want to see law abiding citizens living there denied their right to protection just because they could not afford training ... or travel to/from training.

    As for your question about the police officer, I believe a police officer with a gun pointed at him/her (who was seated in the same position as grandpa in that video) might well have discharged his/her weapon in defense of his/her own life and that of others. The litmus test for the use of lethal force for defensive measures is largely (but not always) the same for private citizens (which includes off-duty police officers) and on-duty police officers. That litmus test may be generally summarized as: fear of imminent death or great bodily harm (to oneself or another).

    The officers I know, personally, would have been highly likely to discharge their firearms in defense of their lives and others; they are all concealed carry holders, themselves ... and very active shooters (i.e. practice a lot). The perpetrators entered the establishment and pointed a firearm at innocents -- which immediately met the litmus test for the use of lethal force in defense of one's life (be it one's own or another person's) ... for both private citizen and on-duty LEO, alike. In effect, by pointing a gun at another (which generates a valid fear of imminent death or great bodily harm) the perpetrators declared open season on themselves... by anyone/everyone they threatened in such a manner ... or even a bystander who witnessed it and elected to protect those threatened.
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2012
  4. rileyjr16

    rileyjr16 Epic Member 5+ Years 1000 Posts

    X2 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  5. ahmitchell1

    ahmitchell1 Rockstar 4 Years ROTM Winner 1000 Posts

    Well said and I totally agree with the part bout inexpensive training, that would help get a lot more people better trained to us theirs weapons. I know a few guys who could use a couple classes
  6. Grizzly Guy

    Grizzly Guy Rockstar 100 Posts

    You are Soooooooooo Right Sir.
  7. RayVoy

    RayVoy Epic Member 5+ Years 5000 Posts

    The point I want to make, is that the police officers (because of their training) would not discharge the weapon as quickly as the untrained citizen and would certainly not spray the room with lead.

    This is a discussion that I can not win, so I am not going to try. The "freedom" of your 2nd amendment has been over zealously used to allow citizens to carry, in my opinion. It reminds me of the "old west" movies, but in those, the cowboys had to check their guns at the sheriff's office.

    And, please understand.............I do not mean to offend, just an outsider's view.
  8. KyleZ71

    KyleZ71 Epic Member 5+ Years 500 Posts ROTM Winner

  9. SurrealOne

    SurrealOne Former Member ROTM Winner 1000 Posts

    I'm not offended and I don't see this discourse as an argument. Rather, I see it as a discussion and am enjoying it -- hopefully that's how you see it, too.

    As it pertains to concealed carry being over zealously used, citizens with valid concealed carry permits:
    • Comprise about 1% of the population in states that have 'shall issue' laws
    • Have no felony or domestic violence convictions
    • Have no history of mental illness or drug addiction
    • Passed a background check and have prints on file with the Authorities
    • Passed mandatory training that covers the use of firearms -and- applicable laws
    • Are statistically far more law-abiding than the general public

    Gun purchases are at an all time high across the last 40 years in the U.S.A. At the same time violent crime is at an all time low across the last 40 years in the U.S.A. While I don't draw a cause/effect relationship between the two like some would, I also do feel there's a relationship that is, if anything, indirect. I actually think shows like NCIS and Bait Car ... coupled with cameras becoming ever more ubiquitous ... play a larger role in deterrance than guns do -- as criminals are less likely to commit violent crimes when they believe/feel they are more likely to get caught. However, when such deterrants fail to deter criminals ... dialing the police fails to keep people from being victims. Guns in properly trained hands ... provide a solution.

    Also for your consideration -- when you see massacres like Virginia Tech, Columbine, etc -- consider that in many cases they are posted no-carry zones. If you were a 'smart criminal', wouldn't you commit your crime in a place where you KNOW you will have the upper hand and in a place you KNOW there won't be armed citizens to shoot back?

    Columbine was a K-12 school, which makes it a no-carry zone per federal law. Virginia Tech was a university that elected to post no-carry signage and deny law-abiding citizens the ability to carry ... without taking any action to make sure criminals couldn't carry. Look at the results. Could lives have been saved in both cases if an armed citizen had been present and elected to defend him/herself and others? Possibly ... if armed citizens could have legally carried in both places -- but they couldn't.

    Arizona has actually introduced legislation to hold entities accountable for your safety if they deny you the right to protect yourself by posting no-carry signage. It's not passed, but it makes sense. Why? Because often entities post such signage to get insurance breaks ... but would be less prone to do so if they had to have metal detectors and guards at every entrance like airports do -- to make sure that EVERYONE was disarmed (and not just the law-abiding citizens who abide the no-carry signs ... which criminals ignore). The expense would outweigh the insurance break the entity received ... and thus entities wouldn't sell people's rights to personal safety out from under them for an insurance break. Food for thought...
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2012
  10. RayVoy

    RayVoy Epic Member 5+ Years 5000 Posts

    Equalily enjoying the discussion.

    As you indicated, you know we don't have carry rights, if we did, I'd be the first to apply. We have 2 sets (probably considered 3 sets) of rules with regard to ownership. We just relaxed the rules around long gun ownership, but the rules around handgun and military style automatic weapons are still very restrictive.

    After carefully review, we can own a handgun, but you must have a transportation permit if you want to move it outside the house. the transportation permit will only allow it to be taken to a range, or for repair. Heck, long guns are not treated a lot differently. We are free to move them outside with a valid hunting license; when the license is no longer valid, the gun owner needs a transportation permit to move it outside the home.
    Even at home, the weapons must be locked and the ammo separately locked.

Share This Page

Newest Gallery Photos