[DOK]

Interesting article in the New York Times online site.."A Struggle to Disarm People Without Gun Rights".

Not about new or more gun laws, but the struggle to enforce the laws already on the books and the tools
for addressing people who purchased the firearm legally but since have become felons, adjudicated as a mental defective, domestic violence, etc..

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/us/06guns.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2


My opinion is this issue is critical, but want to guess where the law makers/enforcers will concentrate.....10 round limit for magazines !! A lot easier for them to process and a heck of a lot cheaper.

 

[RifleFan]

The anti-gunners' solution to gun violence is and has been counter to all evidence of what actually works. They just can't get their brain around the fact that good people with guns don't harm anyone unless it is for defensive purposes. They just can't fathom the fact that guns in the hands of good people is a good thing for those who love freedom. They just don't understand. The analogy is it is like saying to help prevent you from getting the flu we want to inject you with the flu; therefore, in order to prevent gun violence we need more good people to arm themselves. It makes perfect sense.

You are correct, though. They will keep concentrating on banning more and more attempting to reach their goal of just agents of the government being armed instead of working on enforcing laws already on the books.

 

[DOK]

And the public ignorance can be equally frustrating. A woman is quoted in a recent Time Magazine saying, "apparently the NRA doesn't realize the Arizona shooter was disabled by unarmed citizens." Yeah, after the time elapsed for him to shoot 19 people. I'm not particularly quick, but my timed draw from concealment and firing three shots is 3.8 seconds. I would like to think he would have had a lot less than "19 people" time.

 

[RifleFan]

And the public ignorance can be equally frustrating. A woman is quoted in a recent Time Magazine saying, "apparently the NRA doesn't realize the Arizona shooter was disabled by unarmed citizens." Yeah, after the time elapsed for him to shoot 19 people. I'm not particularly quick, but my timed draw from concealment and firing three shots is 3.8 seconds. I would like to think he would have had a lot less than "19 people" time.

Yeah, that is a ridiculous statement. Wooly mammoths were killed by people with sticks....so what. I guess it would be against the rules for them to inject logic into the discussion.

 

[jmortimer]

"...the Arizona shooter was disabled by unarmed citizens."Here are the facts of armed response to mass murder and unarmed response - Don't want to hear about the author, Ann Coulter, but the article from Human Events dated 2-2-11 tells it like it is reagrding the facts that armed people stop mass murder http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41571

 

[jbee]

> "apparently the NRA doesn't realize the Arizona shooter was disabled by unarmed citizens."

That is where that article is 100% wrong. He was stopped by a concealed weapons holder that was ready to shoot him and instead opted to sit on the guy. When a 200 pound guy decides to sit on your neck it makes fighting back a bit harder then usual. The old guy was on the losing end of the fight and was about to get shot when the 200 pound concealed weapons guy threw the felon to the ground and sat on his neck.

I say 200 pounds because he looked hefty when I saw him OTR.

This is where they distort the story, the old lady did not get involved until the 200+ concealed permit holder had thrown the well built felon to the ground and sat on top of his neck and then the older guy got on top too. Then when the felon reached for his extra magazine, the old lady took it away.

This would have turned out much worse if the CCW holder had not been there, able to defend himself, and brave enough and big enough to make a difference.

> but my timed draw from concealment and firing three shots is 3.8 seconds.

We have not seen the tapes, but, I estimate from my meager skills, the killer took at least 22 seconds to aim at and shoot at that many (19) people, and I am sure I practice a bit more at the range then the killer since he did not even have ammo until right before the shooting.

The Fort Hood shooter killed and wounded many more people with a .45 and lower capacity magazines. He had better training then the guy in Tucson, but, he went down as soon as he met someone else that was armed.

If you stand up amid a crowd of people and start shooting people while standing in the same spot, your chance of standing for more then a few seconds diminish once people with guns and training start shooting at you. The Fort Hood shooter lasted what, all of
ten seconds ? once the police knew who was doing the killing.

I am sure if there was a Marine with a knife and concealed .45 sitting in the front row, we would have had a burial instead of a trial and a 9 year old girl would still be alive.

 

[MMichaelAK]

Best anyone can honestly say with complete certainty is that MAYBE a CCW holder sitting nearby might have stopped the Arizona shooter before he killed X number of people and wounded Y number instead of killing 6 and wounding 19.

Would it have helped? Very possibly. But how is this related to the OP?
I agree with let's enforce the laws on the books and leave legal firearms owners the heck alone.
In the situation where you were legal and now are no longer legal because of a choice you made or you are no longer of sufficient mental capacity, then maybe having a firearm isnt the best thing for you.

 

[slim 60]

i like to think that in stanly co. n.c. ,, this guy would have been taken out a lot quicker..mabe not,but most people here know that in a group
of 10 people picked at random .. 3-4 are gonna be armed..that would be my guess.. now if everyone who opts to carry, would learn to use the tool they have chosen for protection..
now in a perfect world nobody would have to carry and there would not be those who want absolute power within our gov t..but thats only gonna be when the only one capable of handleing absolute power,is in charge here on earth..its not a perfect world ,huh.

 

[TacticalSelect]

Good article.

The Tucson shooter was only brought down once he had to reload. Then the score was even between him and everyone else that was there without a gun so they acted and took him down.

The sad thing is that people see that as a reason to limit the number of rounds that one can have in a magazine. All that would happen is that the criminal would carry another gun, get an accomplice or get his hands on an "illegal" magazine that holds more than the law abiding citizen can carry. Criminals don't abide by the law so when the lawmakers make the laws, they're making them for the law abiding citizens.

Ban guns completely and crime would sky rocket because every law abiding citizen out there would not have any means to protect themselves while the criminals still have illegal guns which they continue to commit crimes with.

I strongly feel that gun violence would go down if the only gun laws were against criminals. (Criminals can't own guns, criminals can't carry guns, etc.) Other than that......It's all good. If you're a law abiding citizen, you can carry your gun out in the open if you want, conceal it if you want. Have a 10 round magazine, have a 30 round magazine...It's all up to you.

It's hard to speculate what would have happened had there been a CCW license holder in Tuscon at the time of the shooting, but I would like to think that much less people would have been injured or killed.

 

[JimboLLN]

[quote RifleFan]
They just can't get their brain around the fact that good people with guns don't harm anyone unless it is for defensive purposes. quote]

Your absolutely right, 100%. There depraved thinking is that they will get guns out of the hands before people might kill someone or get involved in a crime, while they work to free felons and kill off the unborn and old people who are sickly.

I don't understand anything about Libs, they just don't make any comman sence, especially since we have the current history available to them of other countries that have tried this. Are they wanting to tyrn our whole country into ruthless killers and scoundrells?