• 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

Man acted responsibly, so that means we need to take away everyones guns, news at 11.

:roll:
 
That's...

That's why, Yoda, am I. :2razz:

You mislpalced the "I" and "am". :2razz:

(sorry couldn't resist)

Hey, it's a Dr. Seuss version of "Yoda-speak".
 
Moderator's Warning:
accidental closure. reopened
 
Guy doesn't do something.

Clear evidence that that thing he didn't do must be stopped.
 
Not at all, however I do believe arming everyone is complete nuts. I am not anti 2nd Amendment, I believe you have the right to protect yourself.

The 2nd amendment is for more than just for hunting and protecting your home from burglars.

But a 33 round Glock is insane.

He could have had two glocks and I sure you 2nd amendment proponents would be saying "But two glocks is insane". So the extended magazine is a irrelelvent issue to you people, this tragedy is just an excuse for your people to **** all over the constitution.
 
Holy ****! Breaking news! An intelligent armed citizen responded to a chatoic scene and DIDNT so much as pull his weapon. He actually thought about what was needed and acted responsibly. And Liberals use his decision to NOT pull a weapon to further their own mindless biased politics.

I wonder...if he had been a cop, do you suppose his weapon would have remained holstered?

In other news...mindless myopic liberal moron creates yet another mindless thread to promote his mindless ideals...

no...wait...he does it all the time...so I guess that part cant be considered news...scratch that...
 
Good thing he showed some discipline. Yes? Sounds like a responsible gun owner, to me. Whatcha think?
I think he was lucky. Had the others not identified themselves in time and indicated who the shooter was, he might have taken a shot and hurt or killed someone who was innocent. He didnt think, he over-thought and as a result he hesitated. The fact that he DIDN'T have better training saved lives. A truly proficient user of a weapon, any weapon, does not hesitate in it's use. He immediately identifies the most likely target and utilizes his weapon, he doesnt stop to wait for input from everyone else around him.

This is an example of why I have a problem with civilians carrying weapons around. Several civilians WITHOUT weapons managed to subdue the shooter, unfortunately not until he'd taken several lives, but as I see it there are very rarely times involving an unstable person with a gun that ends ONLY with his death or capture unless law enforcement are involved.
 
Last edited:
I think he was lucky. Had the others not identified themselves in time and indicated who the shooter was, he might have taken a shot and hurt or killed someone who was innocent. He didnt think, he over-thought and as a result he hesitated. The fact that he DIDN'T have better training saved lives. A truly proficient user of a weapon, any weapon, does not hesitate in it's use. He immediately identifies the most likely target and utilizes his weapon, he doesnt stop to wait for input from everyone else around him.

This is an example of why I have a problem with civilians carrying weapons around. Several civilians WITHOUT weapons managed to subdue the shooter, unfortunately not until he'd taken several lives, but as I see it there are very rarely times involving an unstable person with a gun that ends ONLY with his death or capture unless law enforcement are involved.


Well gee... I think it just as likely that he could have saved six innocent lives if he had been right there with Giffords.
Loughner comes up, shoots Giffords and the armed good guy shoots Loughner dead.
 
Well gee... I think it just as likely that he could have saved six innocent lives if he had been right there with Giffords.
Loughner comes up, shoots Giffords and the armed good guy shoots Loughner dead.

It seems in almost every argument here at DP it is always the extreme vs the extreme.

In this case it is the total outlaw of guns vs the desire to arm every citizen.
I don't believe in outlaw of guns as I would be an outlaw then. I don't believe in arming every citizen because I have seen those same klutz citizens everyday just trying to maneuver a vehicle in traffic.

With that said there is such a tendency for those to state if only I had been there with my concealed gun. For that to happen and for that person to be standing in such close proximity to the shooter to allow a safe shot is probably near 0.1% of happening. Afterall how many here have ever been at a mass shooting at anytime in their life with the exception of warfare?
Guys who spend Saturdays at the public firing range want to say they could have stopped it but unless you are battle tested then you are as much am amateur as the boxer who only shadow boxes and has never climbed in the ring.

We will never be 100% safe from an attacker whether it be by gun or razor utility knife. I think the only bright note is more citizens now may be willing to attack the perp such as most passengers on airplanes now.
 
Well gee... I think it just as likely that he could have saved six innocent lives if he had been right there with Giffords.
Loughner comes up, shoots Giffords and the armed good guy shoots Loughner dead.
Yes, so logically everyone should have armed guards, then NO ONE will be shot!
 
Yes, so logically everyone should have armed guards, then NO ONE will be shot!

Ah! The "Rosie O Donell Theorem"...guns are evil, no one should have guns...I would never own a gun because guns are bad and evil...thats why I have an armed bodyguard..."

It always makes me giggle just a little when people accept as a given that police officers should carry firearms...becasue after all...police officers deal with criminals and criminals are often bad people that carry weapons and hurt people. And who do those criminals typically target...police officers? Why of course not! That would be silly. They typically target citizens. The police usually dont get involved til AFTER the crime has been committed.
 
Last edited:
It seems in almost every argument here at DP it is always the extreme vs the extreme.

In this case it is the total outlaw of guns vs the desire to arm every citizen.
I don't believe in outlaw of guns as I would be an outlaw then. I don't believe in arming every citizen because I have seen those same klutz citizens everyday just trying to maneuver a vehicle in traffic.

With that said there is such a tendency for those to state if only I had been there with my concealed gun. For that to happen and for that person to be standing in such close proximity to the shooter to allow a safe shot is probably near 0.1% of happening. Afterall how many here have ever been at a mass shooting at anytime in their life with the exception of warfare?
Guys who spend Saturdays at the public firing range want to say they could have stopped it but unless you are battle tested then you are as much am amateur as the boxer who only shadow boxes and has never climbed in the ring.

We will never be 100% safe from an attacker whether it be by gun or razor utility knife. I think the only bright note is more citizens now may be willing to attack the perp such as most passengers on airplanes now.

While I AM opposed to using ANY tragedy as a springboard for furthering political gains, I also not only dont think EVERYONE should be armed (with firearms) but in fact believe MANY sane, intelligent individuals have absolutely no business carrying firearms. My own wife for example. Had she been armed in this instance and been present she would not have pulled a weapon on the shooter (scratch that-if she had been present and the shooter had directly expressed an intent to harm her children or granchildren, dood couldnt and wouldnt have been dead enough...and she probably woulodnt have needed a weapon to kill him). However some people in a one on one stuation where a firearm would be needed are much more likely to freeze or hesitate than to defend themselves with a firearm. Much more likely the weapon would then be used against them. Those individuals SHOULD (in my opinion) carry pepper foam...not spray..and be well trained in recognizing individuals that represent harm and appropriate defensive tactics...but should NOT carry guns.
 
Ah! The "Rosie O Donell Theorem"...guns are evil, no one should have guns...I would never own a gun because guns are bad and evil...thats why I have an armed bodyguard..."
I have never once in my life claimed that people shouldnt have guns. I HAVE said that they shouldnt be allowed to carry them wherever they please.
 
I think he was lucky. Had the others not identified themselves in time and indicated who the shooter was, he might have taken a shot and hurt or killed someone who was innocent. He didnt think, he over-thought and as a result he hesitated. The fact that he DIDN'T have better training saved lives. A truly proficient user of a weapon, any weapon, does not hesitate in it's use. He immediately identifies the most likely target and utilizes his weapon, he doesnt stop to wait for input from everyone else around him.

This is an example of why I have a problem with civilians carrying weapons around. Several civilians WITHOUT weapons managed to subdue the shooter, unfortunately not until he'd taken several lives, but as I see it there are very rarely times involving an unstable person with a gun that ends ONLY with his death or capture unless law enforcement are involved.

If you are afraid of guns-as you obviously are-don't own one. don't project your feelings onto others
 
If you are afraid of guns-as you obviously are-don't own one. don't project your feelings onto others
I dont fear firearms, I simply feel that they add a more dangerous factor to public life that I dont feel is necessary.
 
There are a bazillion what ifs. What if the guy had been present at the start of the attack and thus seen who the shooter was and killed him immediately. There never would have been any mistaken identification.

What if you couldn't buy any guns? Loughner may have used a knife instead, and thus been able to kill less people.

What if you couldn't buy any guns? Loughner may have turned to making bombs instead, and thus killed more people.

What if everyone had a gun? Loughner may have turned to making bombs, and thus killed more people.

What if everyone had a gun? Loughner may not have acted at all.

Personally, I think making it easier for people to buy guns is unlikely to deter anyone from doing anything - especially insane people. The only difference is more people will end up dead - probably an equal ratio of criminals to victims. But you can theorize just about any result you want.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom