Wistrick

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

pnwvolks

Yeah I can see what you mean, but its a really sad situation though.

GixxerPete

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.

koorbloh

there was a shooting in Moscow, ID a few years back.

guy who was armed went after the shooter.

he became a victim.

Brianaintright

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.

DerBarbarian

. If you are armed and engage the shooter you yourself could be taken as the shooter and taken down by another armed individual it's kind of a risky maneuver. A big to what Brian said, you need to be ready and prepared to do what it takes. I know people who carry who only go shooting very rarely which is kind of scary to be honest, who knows what they'll hit especially if they're in a crowded area. I personally go shooting as often as my hands allow so I can stay proficient with the weapon I carry. I just wish we had a range around here that had pop up targets, moving targets etc to be even better prepared just in case.

James

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!