![]() |
![]() | #1 |
Gunslinger Joined: Mar 2010 From: Pendleton, OR Posts: 22 | Tucson shooting
Not to make light of this tragedy.....but with Arizona's CCW laws I am surprised that there where no armed citizens in the crowd, might have saved a few lives... thoughts???? Dan |
Join PNW Guns |
Welcome to PNW Guns, a gun and firearm community for gun owners in the Pacific Northwest. We welcome everyone and the community is free to join so register today and become part of the PNW Guns family! |
![]() | #2 |
Marksman Joined: Dec 2010 From: Fall City Posts: 305 |
Yeah I can see what you mean, but its a really sad situation though.
|
![]() | #3 |
Sharpshooter Joined: Jan 2009 From: Renton, WA Posts: 845 |
Actually there was, one of the guys who helped tackle/subdue Loughner was armed. He was in a nearby store when it first went down, and came out ready to draw (or maybe he did draw?) but saw the other guy who got winged was already trying to wrestle the gun from him and so either didn't draw or re-holstered and helped the guy subdue Loughner instead. I'm paraphrasing from numerous articles I read earlier, which is why I'm not positive of details, but that's the gist of it. |
![]() | #4 |
Sharpshooter Joined: Jan 2009 From: Lynnwood, WA Posts: 870 |
there was a shooting in Moscow, ID a few years back. guy who was armed went after the shooter. he became a victim. |
![]() | #5 |
Marksman Joined: Nov 2009 From: WA Posts: 463 |
I think it happened in Tacoma too, an armed civilian went up against the active shooter at Tacoma Mall and lost. I don't know the details but I wonder how much training these people had? Did they challenge the bad guy or just get blindsided? Were they mentally prepared for the fight they found themselves in? I know the first rule of the gunfight is to have a gun but without training and proper mindset it can seriously lead to a very bad day. |
![]() | #6 | |
Marksman Joined: Jan 2009 From: Seattle Posts: 358 | Quote:
![]() ![]() | |
![]() | #7 |
Sharpshooter Joined: Jan 2010 From: Pacific NW Posts: 690 | ![]()
THIS IS THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ. Very good article, of course from a Marine !!!! As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society. Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . . . Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter.... "The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act. By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.) So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced. This is worth printing and sharing with others! Last edited by James; 01-13-2011 at 05:03 PM. |