• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Armed bystander almost shot hero that disarmed AZ shooter

Chappy said:
Gun free zone? Arizona is one of the most, if not the most armed state in the union. You don't even need a permit to carry concealed in Arizona.

As to deterrence, does anybody think Jared Lee Loughton was deterrable?
Click to expand...

As long as fruitcakes are running around and law enforcement isn't able to protect us--as the Pima County sheriff's department so vividly illustrated--I have the right to protect myself.
 
X Factor said:
Ask that same question of every lib that blame Palin and/or the TEA party for the shooting.
Click to expand...

Yes rather than answer the question throw up some partisan bull**** that adds nothing to the conversation or really the value of anything at all.

Its a good point, was the shooter deterrable? Probably not, doesn't mean I think any less of our current gun laws its just reality.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You're opposed to it - so you're part of *that particular* problem.
Click to expand...

not at all, I am merely realistic-I understand privacy rights inside and out
 
Wiseone said:
Just wondering is there still any confusion on what I was saying on page one about the dangers of not rightly identifying your target before you fire? And how what I'm saying is part of being an educated and responsible gun owner and nothing political?
Click to expand...

That is generally one of the very first lessons anyone trained in the proper use of a firearm is taught -- aside from the fact that it's also common sense. From the OP, I get the sense that the guy coming from walgreens did the right and responsible thing.

Aunt Spiker said:
Obviously I don't oppose PROTECTING yourself or being adequately armed or trained to handle said situations - I think it's very important, in fact. But at the same time so is PREVENTION and INTERVENTION altogether.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I'd have had no problem with tossing this guy into the bin; I do have a problem with tossing this guy into a facility as a solution in lieu of allowing people to carry weapons. Both are good solutions...carrying guns the better one, IMO, because no matter how many unstable people you pin down there will always be others ready to commit atrocities, unstable or not.

Problem is, many of those seeking solutions consider the infringing of the peoples' right to carry guns to be a solution right up there with putting folks in institutions. That is naive.
 
TurtleDude said:
not at all, I am merely realistic-I understand privacy rights inside and out
Click to expand...

I support personal rights. And I always ALWAYS say that when rights clash the superior right in the situation trumps the other right.

Loughner's right to privacy VS 6 people's right to life.
Hmm - gee - which one do I think is REASONABLE to violate?
Yep - Loughner's.

Look - the Supreme court has already set up various tests and measures to determine which rights are limited . . . and a right to privacy is one of those.

Yep - that means that rights actually have limits.

Gee!
 
Wiseone said:
Yes rather than answer the question throw up some partisan bull**** that adds nothing to the conversation or really the value of anything at all.

Its a good point, was the shooter deterrable? Probably not, doesn't mean I think any less of our current gun laws its just reality.
Click to expand...
As I recall, that poster was quick to jump on the anti Palin/TEA Party bandwagon (until the wheels fell off), and now he's suggesting that the shooter was not deterrable. Where was that question before?
 
Wiseone said:
Yes rather than answer the question throw up some partisan bull**** that adds nothing to the conversation or really the value of anything at all.

Its a good point, was the shooter deterrable? Probably not, doesn't mean I think any less of our current gun laws its just reality.
Click to expand...

It's kind of hard to kill someone when you're in a straight jacket. :shrug: I'm sure Hannibal Lecter had a trick to his trade - but Loughner? No.

The only reason why Loughner was ABLE to go off was because every single person who encountered him and SAW he was a threat did nothing.

Dupnik = nothing
Parents = nothing
Psychiatrist = nothing
Friends = nothing
Teachers = nothing

Some have said *in interviews post the shooting* that "we knew he was capable of doing something like this" - but did = nothing.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
It's kind of hard to kill someone when you're in a straight jacket. :shrug: I'm sure Hannibal Lecter had a trick to his trade - but Loughner? No.

The only reason why Loughner was ABLE to go off was because every single person who encountered him and SAW he was a threat did nothing.

Dupnik = nothing
Parents = nothing
Psychiatrist = nothing
Friends = nothing
Teachers = nothing

Some have said *in interviews post the shooting* that "we knew he was capable of doing something like this" - but did = nothing.
Click to expand...

I agree, I just meant that in the shooter's head the possibility that people at this event may have weapons didn't deter his actions. I'm on you're side here
 
TurtleDude said:
Mad Cow the muffin munchin marxist!
Click to expand...

I'm going to put you on my ignore list. I'm really tired of the grade school lack of maturity you display with not much to contribute. There is no way in hell you are really an attorney. Your posts are nothing like any attorney I know. Come on admit it. Daddy is one ore you're living in a schizoid world like the shooter.

Done!

Maybe if enough of us do you'll go back up to your room.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
People being armed and trained is possible

reforming mental health care-good luck with that

privacy concerns will always be a major obstacle
Click to expand...

Reforming mental health care is not as difficult as you think. For one, let's stop cutting programs that actually HELP those who are mentally ill.
 
TurtleDude said:
not at all, I am merely realistic-I understand privacy rights inside and out
Click to expand...

Privacy rights aren't as much of an issue as you think. You are thinking at step TWO. I am talking about step ONE. I don't want a loon going around buying guns, but I see little that can stop that without infringing on other people's rights. That's step TWO. Step ONE is have better and MORE treatment programs in order to help the loons become less looney... or at least identify them.
 
X Factor said:
As I recall, that poster was quick to jump on the anti Palin/TEA Party bandwagon (until the wheels fell off), and now he's suggesting that the shooter was not deterrable. Where was that question before?
Click to expand...

Ah. The "tit for tat" argument. You show'd him by posting just like him. So, how do you think that makes YOU look?
 
EnigmaO01 said:
I'm going to put you on my ignore list. I'm really tired of the grade school lack of maturity you display with not much to contribute. There is no way in hell you are really an attorney. Your posts are nothing like any attorney I know. Come on admit it. Daddy is one ore you're living in a schizoid world like the shooter.

Done!

Maybe if enough of us do you'll go back up to your room.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Cease the personal attacks.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Depends on the prevention. Not all prevention techniques work very well or is worth the loss of a persons right.
Click to expand...

The statement presumes that both the prevention and the cure works.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Click to expand...

not always-

teaching people to drive better is not grounds to ditch having insurance or wearing seatbelts
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Reforming mental health care is not as difficult as you think. For one, let's stop cutting programs that actually HELP those who are mentally ill.
Click to expand...

treatment works with those who want it
 
TurtleDude said:
not always-

teaching people to drive better is not grounds to ditch having insurance or wearing seatbelts
Click to expand...

I didn't say an ounce of prevention REPLACES cure. It's important to have both. However, prevention reduces the need for (but doesn't eliminate) cure. Using your example, for the most part, better drivers use insurance less often than worse drivers.
 
TurtleDude said:
treatment works with those who want it
Click to expand...

Some don't know that they want it until they are in it. I used to work at a substance abuse rehab. Never saw an addict ever come in wanting treatment. The reasons they came in were usually things like, "my spouse would leave me if I didn't" or "my job told me I had to or they'd fire me", or "it was either this or jail. I don't want to go to jail". Those that wanted treatment got that "want" during treatment. This is pretty common with a lot of different disorders. That's why getting them into treatment is the key.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I didn't say an ounce of prevention REPLACES cure. It's important to have both. However, prevention reduces the need for (but doesn't eliminate) cure. Using your example, for the most part, better drivers use insurance less often than worse drivers.
Click to expand...

true, I just don't see how we force those who don't want treatment to get it and those are the nutcases who cause most of the problems I see
 
TurtleDude said:
true, I just don't see how we force those who don't want treatment to get it and those are the nutcases who cause most of the problems I see
Click to expand...

I agree it's difficult and I agree that it's the crazies who cause most of the problems, especially with guns. Here in NJ, they are closing two psychiatric facilities and placing those patients on a plan where they can live in the community. This is absurd to me. It was deemed a medical necessity for them to be in an institution... but then when the budget got cut, it is now OK for them to be living outside of a facility. Some of the things that it would require are societal changes. For example, the stigma of mental health issues needs to be eliminated. One reason I so respect Betty Ford is, because of what she did, it is FAR more OK for an addict to get into treatment. Also, mental health needs to be treated as a HEALTH issue, not as mental problems. Lots of folks don't know the difference between being sad and being clinically depressed and don't know that the latter is as debiliating as a broken leg, pneumonia, or paralysis. And, with this, there needs to be a lot more education on mental illness. We teach our kids and parents to recognize the signs of addiction, but teaching the signs of mental illness doesn't happen nearly as often. Acceptance, Parity, and Education (what I call my APE plan) is the first step towards this. People will be more likely to both seek help and point out those who NEED help, earlier if these things are in place.

Also, we already have laws that handle commitments... for the seriously mentally ill. Some of these laws need to be tweaked a bit. In these cases, I lean more towards security than liberty, but that's from first hand knowledge of these issues. Lastly, budget cuts need to not touch mental health issues. There is more danger from a crazy abusing our rights than any other kind of individual. Imagine this. If we had no lunitics using guns inappropriately, gun-grabbers would have nothing to latch onto and could be laughed out of existence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom