[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by redwitch

Given some recent incidents, sitting on the ground with hands in the air wouldn't necessarily prevent the man from being shot and killed. And if he'd been standing with gun in hand, the correct police procedure would have been to shoot, don't you think?

You are absolutely correct and if anyone bothered (or cared) to do a little research, a list of unarmed citizens that have been killed...can easily be found.

I have no problem taking someone out that has a gun in their hands (or even really close by), but some of the 'recent incidents' show that some LEO's...aren't temperamentally suited for the job.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

So another shooting in a GUN FREE ZONE and their will be more calls for more gun laws.

Every time I have to go to the Orlando airport to pick someone up or drop the off, being the responsible, law abiding citizen that I am,I always lock my gun in my car. Then I walk by that stupid sign that tells everyone that good law abiding people don't have guns in here. I feel completely defenseless knowing that criminals who intend to do harm to others will not do like me and obey the law.

As Rango says, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

I feel that if the government is going to take away my ability and my right to defend myself, then they should provide protection for me. In an area like an airport terminal, I believe that would mean a trained arm guard about every fifty yards. This would do two things. It would minimize these events as some of the shooters would not want to get shot and number two, it would minimize the damage that a shooter might do as an trained arm guard should be able to take him out before he shoots too many people. As that would be very costly, another solution might be to allow responsible, law abiding, gun owners with carry permits to take their guns in there like they do almost every where else. That would have about the same effect as armed guards and would cost nothing.

Yesterday, this guy went through two magazines hitting thirteen people before police arrived. When they did arrive, he was out of ammo and sitting on the floor waiting for them.

I have the utmost respect for our police but the sad fact is that in most cases, they arrive after a crime has been committed and usually file a report. In this case since the perpetrator was still there they arrested him. In other words, the police do very little to actually protect us. It is not their fault, they simply cannot be everywhere. In gun free zones, the government is taking away our ability to protect ourselves and does nothing to protect us.

The only ones that don't have guns in a gun free zone are the responsible, law abiding, gun owning citizens. The ones that have a chance to protect themselves and possibly others around them.

[Shimpy]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

So another shooting in a GUN FREE ZONE and their will be more calls for more gun laws.

Every time I have to go to the Orlando airport to pick someone up or drop the off, being the responsible, law abiding citizen that I am,I always lock my gun in my car. Then I walk by that stupid sign that tells everyone that good law abiding people don't have guns in here. I feel completely defenseless knowing that criminals who intend to do harm to others will not do like me and obey the law.

As Rango says, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

I feel that if the government is going to take away my ability and my right to defend myself, then they should provide protection for me. In an area like an airport terminal, I believe that would mean a trained arm guard about every fifty yards. This would do two things. It would minimize these events as some of the shooters would not want to get shot and number two, it would minimize the damage that a shooter might do as an trained arm guard should be able to take him out before he shoots too many people. As that would be very costly, another solution might be to allow responsible, law abiding, gun owners with carry permits to take their guns in there like they do almost every where else. That would have about the same effect as armed guards and would cost nothing.

Yesterday, this guy went through two magazines hitting thirteen people before police arrived. When they did arrive, he was out of ammo and sitting on the floor waiting for them.

I have the utmost respect for our police but the sad fact is that in most cases, they arrive after a crime has been committed and usually file a report. In this case since the perpetrator was still there they arrested him. In other words, the police do very little to actually protect us. It is not their fault, they simply cannot be everywhere. In gun free zones, the government is taking away our ability to protect ourselves and does nothing to protect us.

The only ones that don't have guns in a gun free zone are the responsible, law abiding, gun owning citizens. The ones that have a chance to protect themselves and possibly others around them.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

If this guy had a legal gun, someone in Alaska screwed up big time and should have to pay the pride.

He had a conviction for domestic violence and had also spent time in a mental hospital. His right to own a gun should have been taken away.

It sounds like he might be a mentally ill person, In which case the authorities in Alaska have a lot to answer for.

On the other hand, his right to own a firearm may have been revoked and he may have pick up and illegal weapon somewhere.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

You are absolutely correct and if anyone bothered (or cared) to do a little research, a list of unarmed citizens that have been killed...can easily be found.

I have no problem taking someone out that has a gun in their hands (or even really close by), but some of the 'recent incidents' show that some LEO's...aren't temperamentally suited for the job.

Just because a person is unarmed that doesn't mean that a shooting is unjustified.

What we are finding out is that in many of these cases where BLM and the media are reporting that perpetrators had there hands up and were shot they did not in fact have their hand up.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by redwitch

I'm proud of the police force. They took him down without firing their weapons. This shooter is obviously mentally ill. May he get the help he needs, as well as appropriate punishment.

He does look very ill as far as his brain chemicals are concerned. We will have to wait and see how he came by this gun and the ammunition. A gun just becomes a club with no ammunition.

Our mental health system needs a lot of work in many areas.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

Didn't this guy know that it was against the law to have a gun in the airport?

He probably also knew it was against the law to shoot people with said gun.

[Sandtrap328]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

So another shooting in a GUN FREE ZONE and their will be more calls for more gun laws.

Every time I have to go to the Orlando airport to pick someone up or drop the off, being the responsible, law abiding citizen that I am,I always lock my gun in my car. Then I walk by that stupid sign that tells everyone that good law abiding people don't have guns in here. I feel completely defenseless knowing that criminals who intend to do harm to others will not do like me and obey the law.

The only ones that don't have guns in a gun free zone are the responsible, law abiding, gun owning citizens. The ones that have a chance to protect themselves and possibly others around them.

...and the answer is to allow everyone with a carry permit to have their sidearms with them at all times? Just think what additional carnage would have occurred if there were 50 wannabee John Waynes who all pulled out their pistols and began blasting away at everyone else who was displaying a pistol.

Why not allow all spectators at college or professional sports events to bring guns into the stadium in case of a terror attack? Just imagine 50,000 armed spectators fueled up on testosterone and beer? How would these games end?

Probably the best answer for the airport situation is NOT to allow any guns to be shipped - for any reason.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Sandtrap328

...and the answer is to allow everyone with a carry permit to have their sidearms with them at all times? Just think what additional carnage would have occurred if there were 50 wannabee John Waynes who all pulled out their pistols and began blasting away at everyone else who was displaying a pistol.

Why not allow all spectators at college or professional sports events to bring guns into the stadium in case of a terror attack? Just imagine 50,000 armed spectators fueled up on testosterone and beer? How would these games end?

Probably the best answer for the airport situation is NOT to allow any guns to be shipped - for any reason.

Maybe just not allow ammunition to be shipped along with firearms. And have the authorities put trigger locks on the rifles and guns and the like when they are inspecting them which are only removed by armed cops at the baggage area looking for people carrying ammunition for these guns to give to their co-conspirators coming in on arriving flights.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Sandtrap328

...and the answer is to allow everyone with a carry permit to have their sidearms with them at all times? Just think what additional carnage would have occurred if there were 50 wannabee John Waynes who all pulled out their pistols and began blasting away at everyone else who was displaying a pistol.

Why not allow all spectators at college or professional sports events to bring guns into the stadium in case of a terror attack? Just imagine 50,000 armed spectators fueled up on testosterone and beer? How would these games end?

Probably the best answer for the airport situation is NOT to allow any guns to be shipped - for any reason.

Too much common sense in your post Sand...you'll soon be excoriated for it.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by Sandtrap328

...and the answer is to allow everyone with a carry permit to have their sidearms with them at all times? Just think what additional carnage would have occurred if there were 50 wannabee John Waynes who all pulled out their pistols and began blasting away at everyone else who was displaying a pistol.

Why not allow all spectators at college or professional sports events to bring guns into the stadium in case of a terror attack? Just imagine 50,000 armed spectators fueled up on testosterone and beer? How would these games end?

Probably the best answer for the airport situation is NOT to allow any guns to be shipped - for any reason.

First of all that's ridiculous from the standpoint of denying people the right to have their property transported.

Secondly, it would do any good. A criminal with a gun can simply enter the airport terminal area and commit the same crime.

Your description of 50 wannabe John Waynes is cute but is really pretty insulting to responsible law abiding gun owners. It's absurd to say that everyone will start blasting away at everyone holding a gun.

A good guy with a gun or multiple good guys with guns probably would have saved lives in this event. If guns were allowed in this area it's very possible that this guy and many others would never have tried this. It's also highly probably that if he did pull out his gun and start to shoot there would have been far fewer victims.

And yes....the answer is to allow all licensed conceal carry holders to bring their guns anywhere.

If you notice, almost every one of these mass shootings takes place in a so called gun free zone otherwise known as a safe target rich environment for murderers.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

He probably also knew it was against the law to shoot people with said gun.

And my point is that laws don't stop people from doing bad things. The police usually don't stop people from doing bad things. Having a law that bans guns from airport terminals only stops people who obey the law. An environment has been created where only the criminals have guns.

Once this guy was able to bring this gun into the terminal, there are two ways that this could have been avoided or minimized. Either have armed guards every fifty yards in the terminal or allow law biding gun owners with concealed carry permits to carry their guns there. The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

[rivaridger1]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

Too much common sense in your post Sand...you'll soon be excoriated for it.

Yep " excoriated ", us gun toting, knuckle dragging, Bible clinging Neanderthals clad in wife beater shirts are unable to debate anything in a sane and logical manner. The fact millions of guns have been transported legally for decades by the airlines without any previously reported incidents of this nature is obviously a statistical aberration which needs to be totally ignored when discussing potential solutions to prevent a repeat of this incident. A deranged individual somehow was allowed to either keep or gain access to a gun. Something, probably preventable based on what I have read so far, if the mental health professionals had been on the ball and the laws already enacted worked. Let's ascertain the facts, all the facts, relating to this horrible event and then sensibly decide if something needs be changed to reduce the chance of a reoccurrence. Perhaps, to the dismay of some, it is eventually concluded this risk is something we all must face to retain a free democratic society. If so, it is a risk, I will choose to accept.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Originally Posted by Sandtrap328

...and the answer is to allow everyone with a carry permit to have their sidearms with them at all times? Just think what additional carnage would have occurred if there were 50 wannabee John Waynes who all pulled out their pistols and began blasting away at everyone else who was displaying a pistol.

I agree with Sandtrap. This is the type of topic that can be debated endlessly without agreement.

[Sandtrap328]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

I agree with Sandtrap. This is the type of topic that can be debated endlessly without agreement.

Thank you, Barefoot.
In Florida, any US veteran with a DD214 and a clean set of fingerprints can get a concealed carry permit by just paying a small fee (about $125). It makes no difference if the veteran was recently discharged or if he/she was discharged from the military in 1955 and has not fired a gun since that time. No classes needed nor any proficiency with a gun required. Are these the "well-trained" gun carriers that we want armed at airports, sporting events, or the town squares? I don't think so!

There is a lot of difference between shooting at a paper target in a controlled environment and shooting at a person in a very stressful situation (noise, people running, confussion about who the bad guy is, shots being fired, screaming, etc). We have all seen the trained police officers on the news who fire their entire magazine at a bad guy at fairly close range and hit him only once or twice. This is stress shooting! Imagine the 50 John Wayne wannabees in a crowded airport or sports arena or theater all pulling their guns and start shooting in their perceived direction of the bad guy/gal. Stressful situation combined with possibly decades of not practicing stressful situation shooting combined with poor eyesight and poor coordination of being an aging senior does not make for a good ending for the masses.