Concealed Handguns vs Orlando terrorism last night

HiBC said:
Are you suggesting that no amount of bad behavior on my part should jeopardize my carry permit or RTKBA?
Click to expand...
not at all. I just don’t believe you should lose your gun rights for behavior that has nothing to do with being violent. I don’t believe that all felonies should remove someones right to arms.

but what laws I believe in isn’t the point its what do such laws do to contribute to our loss of rights? Gun control is an attempt to legislate violence to some acceptable level, but I’m of the opinion that its impossible to legislate violence. So all I’m saying is I'm questioning the merit of judging all behavior as a basis for denying a constitutional right.

HiBC said:
I am adamantly opposed to even one more ratchet click of restriction.We already have too many laws.
I am not suggesting giving up any more.
Click to expand...
to clarify, we agree on gun control. My apologies if my replies seemed to challenge that, it wasn’t my intention. I appreciate a lot of your participation in this forum actually.
 
Thanks.We are running pretty far off topic.

Should non-violent felons retain RTKBA? or the vote? Might make for an interesting new thread.
Probably off in the weeds for "Would a CCW have made a difference at Orlando"
 
You're right HiBC.
The question at hand is:
***Without*** getting into politics and religion, there is a simple question: Would a CCW / LTC / CHL made a significant difference last night, and why.
 
The answer is no one really knows.

1. You make the shot.
2. You miss and kill an innocent.
3. The shooter shoots you first
4. Another good guy shoots you.
5. An off duty cop or security guard shoots you
6. You kill the bad guy and an innocent
7. You freeze and get shot
8. You miss the bad guy and hidden backup shoots you.

Who knows - I do know that if you don't have a gun, you don't have a chance to shoot the bad guy. But it is isn't easy for all those who claim they will jump up like Chuck Norris and make an instinctive shot at a distance with a moving target.
 
Well, as a Floridian...
1. Bars are gun-free zones...
but having been a bartender I know full well folks ignore that rule all the time...
and quite a few bartenders/bar owners have "Equalizer's" on hand or under the bar...

Which I think IS the answer to the question.
Drinkers should be unarmed.
Bartenders/staff should be armed.
And CC licensees should be able to carry in bars as long as they aren't imbibing.

2. Being a gun-free zone, means you ought to have at least 3 cops on hand,
since patron's aren't allowed to protect themselves...
better make sure they are well-protected.

3. It also just opened up a ton of lawsuits for the bar NOT having
a sufficient level of protection, and the state of Florida can be sued
as the gun-free restriction at bars has now been PROVEN
to be more harmful than allowing CC licensees to carry in bars.
 
I mean no disrespect to the victims or family.
Given the shooter was dumping magazines into the people in front of him:
Likely an armed response from the front would not go well.But,what is there to lose?

If I'm behind him,if I will just find my sights,a head shot from 10 feet might be doable.Or a mag dump COM.

If I miss and hit an innocent that was in front of him,well ,odds are the shooter was going kill the innocent anyway.

I do agree a wild Chuck Norris snap shot would be foolish,and only attract the shooters attention.

The shooter might shoot me? Odds are,if I'm in the same room,I'm dead.

He went back and overkilled the people who were down.

I have not read where anyone mentioned.....after the first few seconds,I would think those who could run,ran.
People tend to hit the deck and/or crawl for cover.

I would guess the only person standing in the room was the bad guy.

I would guess the bad guy was more or less room center.

I would guess anyone who could use weapon if they were there,would be near floor level,trying to have cover,and would likely have a supported shot at an upward angle,or maybe around a doorjam from a different room.

I know.A lot of maybes.

So are all the other speculations.

I'm no hero.I'm an old,out of shape guy with bad knees ,that has a hard time getting up off the floor.I can't run.
If I got killed,I'd be done worrying about it.
Years ago,there was a hostage situation in a restaurant about 12 miles south of me.An ex took his ex,a waitress hostage.SWAT shot through the glass with a .243.Did not work out.Waitress was killed.
An innocent old guy had hid in the restroom.When the shooting started,he decided it was time to skinny out the restroom window.
Cops chewed him up with more than 20 hits.
Sometimes its a bad day.SWAT has them,too.Columbine did not go well.

So why all the skepticism about the armed citizen? Yup,no guarantees.

Often something is better than nothing
 
Who knows - I do know that if you don't have a gun, you don't have a chance to shoot the bad guy.
Click to expand...
That's where I come down on the issue. Had a person with a gun been present, they might have mitigated the bloodshed. There's no guarantee of that, of course.

What IS guaranteed is that the total absence of anyone with a gun makes situations like this a free-fire zone.

The only feasible response to someone like the Orlando shooter is an equally violent response.
 
Cosmodragoon, your statement that Liberty is a scary thing is accurate if personal responsibility is all that separates us from anarchy. While I would agree that personal responsibility is an essential component of our system, it is our Constitution and the rule of law defined and enabled by it that is the foundation for liberty. Without the rule of law there is chaos, and real liberty is not possible. Even in Vermont, where personal responsibility and liberty are highly esteemed, without the rule of law chaos would quickly reign.

(Quote from John Winthrop which was excerpted by Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America)
Click to expand...

I don't mean to advocate for some enlightened theoretical state of anarchy. I do believe in liberty under the law. Of course, that law must be reasonable and just. I've always been fond of the following quote, usually (but probably falsely) attributed to George Washington:

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

That said, almost all of the bad and scary things people can do with guns are generally illegal in their own right as actions and regardless of the tool used. Blaming the tool or our right to the tool is as "irresponsible" and wrong as laws which attack that right, regardless of their dressing or degree. The just and righteous law that matters here is the Second Amendment, which was designed to protect a natural right, which itself is absolute for a free people.
 
The just and righteous law that matters here is the Second Amendment, which was designed to protect a natural right, which itself is absolute for a free people.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. HiBC is also right in his quote below. There is tension between these two, and there will always be. Our system of government is messy, imperfect and magnificent. It is not without challenges. Discussion of these matters even here is not easy, and we are all in substantial agreement.

Our Liberty to RTKBA and to carry concealed is under constant assault.To preserve that Liberty,some guidelines for responsible behavior must be in place.
Click to expand...
 
Manta,Most are.
What was the question the OP asked?
The fact is a less than polite person walked into a gay nightclub and started slaughtering human beings.
The question is "Might an armed person have made a difference?"

IMO,the answer is A) An armed person definitely MIGHT have made a GREAT difference,but MIGHT NOT have made a difference.

Is there any argument to make?

The posie sniffer Utopia where everyone is very nice and proper is at the very least contaminated.
There are some people who HATE our society and want to destroy it.

There are some people who HATE another people and are willing to kill them.Not just here in USA.You are in Northern Ireland.Need I say more?(No disrespect to Ireland or the Irish People.Its History)

And there are some people who are bully thugs,who are big,strong,and dangerous.Will you just kneel and submit to them?
There are people who will beat a woman to near death and rape her.Would you advise more conservative dress,and if all else fails,relax and enjoy??

There is a book,"More Guns,Less Crime" by John Lott.

You see,despite the lies politicians and media feed us,in places where lawful carry is up,crime is down.
And according to FBI statistics,deaths by firearms have DECREASED significantly and steadily over the last 20 years in USA.
Firearm sales,particularly AR-15's,are at a high.
Except,of course,in places with draconian firearms laws,where LAWFUL people are unarmed.Like Chicago.

I'll tell you of two kinds of people who oppose lawful folks being armed.

Violent thugs,who prefer docile sheep,and parents of violent thugs.
I grant consideration to neither.
 
That type of incident a shooting in a bar / club might be new in America but not here. There is no easy answer if someone is determined to carry out a mass shooting or bombing its hard to stop once it has started, preventing trough intelligence etc can have some success. Arm people in clubs and the shooter will just pick a soft target elsewhere. Some attacks can be prevented most will not and there is noting that can be done to stop all attacks, some will just have to face that fact.

There are some people who HATE another people and are willing to kill them.Not just here in USA.You are in Northern Ireland.Need I say more?(No disrespect to Ireland or the Irish People.Its History)
Click to expand...
Did no one tell you we all love each other here now. ;)
 
Last edited:
If we look at the two extremes:

1) A well armed and practiced gunman enters a gun-free zone, which is relatively enclosed and relatively few exists. This might be a large convention of people who are all are unarmed, everyone cowers for a corner, and the gunman has a field day, meeting virtually no resistance and achieving a very high shot-to-kill ratio until his ammo runs out or the SWAT team makes entry, likely in an hour or more.

2) A well armed and practiced gunman enters a gun-permissive zone, where numerous IDPA groups are having a meeting. All are armed competitive shooters. The gunman makes about 10 unanswered shots in about 5 seconds before being shot and killed by multiple members.

In the former, there is very little chance for survival with a dedicated attacher. In the latter, the gunman has the element of surprised for a few seconds, until overwhelmed by numerous persons well versed in self defense and well armed.

Both are extreme cases, although Orlando was significantly closer to the first than the second scenario. A quick internet search shows that about once a year, 'someone' walks into a police station and starts shooting up the place, and generally are killed after shooting 4-7 people and being shot themselves.


As was said above, no weapons = shooters choice. Some guns means a chance. Beyond that the statistics can become pretty subjective quickly.
 
Cosmodragoon said:
Liberty is a scary thing, Koda94. The idea of personal responsibility being the only thing between us and anarchy terrifies a lot of people. After all, what's to stop a person from driving their car through a crowd, swinging a hatchet around in the local malt shop, or hiding homemade explosives at popular sporting events? If we didn't make laws to keep guns out of bars or force people to get special pieces of paper before carrying a gun, the streets would run red with blood. It would be bedlam, just like in the savage state of Vermont where they let sixteen-year-olds carry without a license! :eek:
Click to expand...
Why keep Guns out of bars if someone doesn't drink,just asking for a wack job,O right that's already a problem, sigh

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top