SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - Arizona shooting: Armed Citizen nearly shoots innocent

Posted: Jan 12 2011 02:27 pm

That'd be Utah County. My wife grew up in Snowflake, AZ and virtually everyone she knows is Mormon, so I've learned quite a bit about our neighboring state.

Posted: Jan 12 2011 11:59 pm

The only reason I'm pro-2nd Amendment is because I feel gun control laws only disarm the innocent.

There's just way too many guns in circulation for gun control to make any sense. In a perfect world, nobody would have or need guns, but let's face it, it'll never happen because we live in a world with thugs who will possess them illegally no matter how much you demonize guns. Since we already have guns around and with a good portion of them in the hands of those who may use them with bad intentions, what's the point in getting rid of the ones that may end up in the hands of those who may use them properly and justifiably against the ones that have them illegally?

At the same time, however, I don't blame Alowishus for feeling the way he does about the prevalence of guns in our society. I agree Americans are way too gung-ho over guns and I don't like the fact that it's become too ingrained within our culture. Personally I hate guns and the people who feel they need them to answer the door, look out the window or just plain use them for stupid "entertainment" purposes. But I do feel people should be allowed to use them to protect themselves from legitimately threatening situations.

Posted: Jan 18 2011 10:17 pm

Quote:

Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul assailed as "nonsensical" the recent attempts at stiffening gun control laws in the aftermath of the shooting rampage in Arizona that killed six and left thirteen injured

In an op-ed for The Hill published Monday, Paul sharply denounced the violence in Tucson last Saturday, but said that "some have attempted to use this tragedy to discredit philosophical adversaries or score political points. This sort of opportunism is simply despicable."

Members of both parties, in response to the shootings that left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) critically wounded, have introduced legislation that would outlaw the selling of high-capacity ammunition magazines, close the "gun show loophole," and people from carrying firearms within 1,000 feet of lawmakers.

"This always seems to be the knee jerk reaction to any crime committed with a gun," Paul wrote. "Nonsensical proposals to outlaw guns around federal officials and install bulletproof barriers in the congressional gallery only reinforce the growing perception that politicians view their own lives as far more important than the lives of ordinary citizens."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/ron-paul-gun-control-push-tucson-massacre-despicable/

Posted: Jan 19 2011 04:16 am

I personally hate guns. I wish they didn't exist, and we still had to use swords and bows. I think that if that was the case, the world would be less violent. It's one thing to pull a trigger and shoot somebody from 15 feet away, it's quite another to jam a blade in them and watch the life drain out of them close up. More people have the balls to do the former than the latter.

Still, reality is reality, and guns exist. Ergo, I have my fair share of them.

Posted: Jan 19 2011 04:21 am

Oh yeah, and I also don't believe in concealed carry. Only people with something to hide, hide their gun.

Arizona has always been an open carry state, at least as long as I've been alive. You can legally walk around all day with your handgun on your hip, provided that everyone can see it. I think this is fair and logical.

Sure, if you have a concealed pistol your ass might be saved if someone tries to fuck with you. But if your pistol is right there plain as day, how many people are nuts enough to fuck with you in the first place?

Joined: Dec 30 2010 Location: Salt Lake City Posts: 104

Jack Slater wrote:

I personally hate guns. I wish they didn't exist, and we still had to use swords and bows. I think that if that was the case, the world would be less violent. It's one thing to pull a trigger and shoot somebody from 15 feet away, it's quite another to jam a blade in them and watch the life drain out of them close up. More people have the balls to do the former than the latter.

I've always thought it would be cool to carry around a katana for personal protection.

"you want my wallet you say?"
Schiiiiing

aeonic wrote:

That'd be Utah County. My wife grew up in Snowflake, AZ and virtually everyone she knows is Mormon, so I've learned quite a bit about our neighboring state.

Though I am impressed with your knowledge of the beehive state, you answer is incorrect as you did not state it in the form of a question.

Posted: Jan 19 2011 09:53 pm

Uh the world was just as violent before guns...

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

As far as my views (being a gun owner) go, owning a gun is a right, but also a responsibility. There are people who can use them in a safe, responsible, civilized way, and those who can't, and with the great danger that comes with guns, we have to make sure that latter shouldn't receive such power.

I don't like concealed carry, and I sure as hell don't like things like fully-automatic weapons, extended magazines, armor-piercing rounds, and other completely unnecessary weapons and tools that only those with man-child action fantasies would want to own. These types envision a world where someone pulls a gun in public, they whip out their pistols, and put the assailant down clean. In real life, there's panic, civilians darting each way, cops who could mistake the perpetrator for a vigilante (vice versa), and other concealed carriers who can confuse each other with a perpetrator. Imagine if some civilian came out guns blazing during the Hollywood Shootout years ago. There were a million things that could have gone wrong.

I prefer to keep sizable police forces of well-trained men and women with the proper tools to keep civilians as well as themselves as safe as possible.

Posted: Jan 19 2011 10:59 pm

UsaSatsui wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

I'm going to shoot first and ask questions later.

You're allowed to use a gun to protect your property, but you're not allowed to fire it at someone who isn't threatening you. They are not a threat if their hands are full of computer. Feel free to pistol-whip them though.

As long as you shoot below the waist it's not considered lethal force or is it the knee and below? Ehh, if I say freeze and the bastard doesn't run away I'm shooting them. If all esle fails Shoot them then put a knife in the burglars hand.

The original purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to have a militia at the states disposal at any given moment. Some how over the years it evolved into everyone being able to have guns. Last I checked we are not a militia.

2nd Amendment - A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Posted: Jan 19 2011 11:37 pm

Greg the White wrote:

These types envision a world where someone pulls a gun in public, they whip out their pistols, and put the assailant down clean. In real life, there's panic, civilians darting each way, cops who could mistake the perpetrator for a vigilante (vice versa), and other concealed carriers who can confuse each other with a perpetrator. Imagine if some civilian came out guns blazing during the Hollywood Shootout years ago. There were a million things that could have gone wrong.

You're absolutely right. In fact, there was a man who was present for the AZ shooting who had a legally concealed weapon and told reporters that he was about one second from pulling it out and shooting at a guy holding a gun...but the guy who was holding the gun had actually just wrestled it away from the actual perpetrator. The man who was concealing said he was 'lucky' not to have shot him.

Posted: Jan 23 2011 05:27 pm

Douche McCallister wrote:

The original purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to have a militia at the states disposal at any given moment. Some how over the years it evolved into everyone being able to have guns. Last I checked we are not a militia.

2nd Amendment - A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You ought to check again. The militia is defined as every able bodied male between 17 and 45.