Man at Walmart attacked for carrying gun with permit

[Ripoll]

Not that, the effectiveness of civilian intervention. Because I assure you, more often than not it does more harm than good. Civilians need to focus on prevention, not intervention. We simply need to increase the effectiveness of police response time

Ugh... Such a pain. I haven't even heard of half of the sites that cover some of the incidents I was thinking of, so I won't link those.

I found these two that seemed to be decently covered, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_ ... r_shooting

http://www.ktvn.com/story/8378732/three ... -on-sunday

See, it's very hard to find even one story about successful intervention. The first of which the shooter committed suicide, not effectively stopped by someone else, just himself.

still, I know none of our opinions will ever change and I pretty much got what I wanted to get out so I hope we all benefited from this discussion in some way or another to better form our opinions.

[Marxist Paradisium]

You may be right. I may be right. No one knows for certain. But, as you have stated, crime is a much bigger problem than hypothetical dystopian scenarios. And crime is harder to stop with strict gun control laws.

I'd like to think that diarming criminals makes it easier to stop crime, and all pro gun critics do is criticize legislation for not doing that. If that's the case I frankly don't care to get involved in a partisan debate, I say let's fix the laws if they're faulty instead of using the same hypothetical that have been tried and failed multiple times.

I'd like to think so too. However, when has outlawing something stopped people from getting it? Look at prohibition. Look at the war on drugs. If people want it badly enough then, unfortunately, they will get it.

[Tyrinth]

Ugh... Such a pain. I haven't even heard of half of the sites that cover some of the incidents I was thinking of, so I won't link those.

I found these two that seemed to be decently covered, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_ ... r_shooting

http://www.ktvn.com/story/8378732/three ... -on-sunday

See, it's very hard to find even one story about successful intervention. The first of which the shooter committed suicide, not effectively stopped by someone else, just himself.

still, I know none of our opinions will ever change and I pretty much got what I wanted to get out so I hope we all benefited from this discussion in some way or another to better form our opinions.

He was, though. You'll find that that is a trend with mass shooters. They tend to kill themselves when they encounter armed resistance. The CCer effectively gave him reason to cease the shooting. That's part of the mentality of CCers that others don't seem to get. Oftentimes firing your weapon is not even necessary.

And, second, the stories are not difficult to find - there are plenty. It's just difficult to find them covered well. Shootings which are stopped do not receive the same extensive coverage as the traditional mass shootings. That and there were a few I knew would be dismissed because the CCer had ex military training or something.

[Ripoll]

I'd like to think that diarming criminals makes it easier to stop crime, and all pro gun critics do is criticize legislation for not doing that. If that's the case I frankly don't care to get involved in a partisan debate, I say let's fix the laws if they're faulty instead of using the same hypothetical that have been tried and failed multiple times.

I'd like to think so too. However, when has outlawing something stopped people from getting it? Look at prohibition. Look at the war on drugs. If people want it badly enough then, unfortunately, they will get it.

We understand people can get it no matter what happens, but when has that ever been sufficient justification for anything? Should we not tax because no matter what people will evade them? Should heroin be made legal?

[The Grey Wolf]

I like how some people are blaming the tackler...

People do seem to hold negative opinions towards assaulting law abiding citizens, I tend to notice.

[Marxist Paradisium]

I'd like to think so too. However, when has outlawing something stopped people from getting it? Look at prohibition. Look at the war on drugs. If people want it badly enough then, unfortunately, they will get it.

We understand people can get it no matter what happens, but when has that ever been sufficient justification for anything? Should we not tax because no matter what people will evade them? Should heroin be made legal?

Actually, legalizing heroin is a good idea. Same premise. As for tax evaders, the government makes enough money off the people who do pay taxes. My point is that we shouldn't base our thinking off the idea that laws deter criminals. All laws like that do is make it easier for criminals to take advantage of law abiding citizens, by taking guns out of their hands.

[The Grey Wolf]

I'm glad that this didn't turn into the disaster it almost was. It's fortunate that the second man didn't also have a gun, and it's also fortunate that the first man didn't shoot him.

If the other man had a gun, chances are he would have been aware of the statutes about bearing firearms, and this whole scenario would never have happened.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Not that, the effectiveness of civilian intervention. Because I assure you, more often than not it does more harm than good. Civilians need to focus on prevention, not intervention. We simply need to increase the effectiveness of police response time

This, if the police response times are the issue, then the logical solution is too upgrade the effectiveness of police response times, not that hard to figure out guys.

Unless you can make it so that they instantly teleport to the scene of a crime, it will always be an issue, and one that can never be as effective as giving citizens the right to defend themselves. And it is that hard to figure out. Gun control is a very difficult topic. I realize you seem to think your ideas espoused on the internet are somehow a cure all to the gun related issues and would have no issue getting implemented in the US, but that is simply not the case in reality.

[Imperializt Russia]

Even with legal carry permits, if you arm civilians with a lethal weapon like a gun it just gives way to the possibility of creating more criminals. Everyone would have the capability to Murder, to Kidnap, to Rob, to do anything really.

Which is why the U.S. is full of legal gun owners regularly doing those things. Wait a minute....

The only crime that Texan CCW holders were convicted of more than the general population was alcohol charges (IIRC not involving their firearm). Everything else was hugely reduced.

First off, how many school shootings have gun control laws stopped? All they do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, making it harder to stop criminals and lunatics.
Second, human nature dictates that people will do whatever they can get away with. If the people were not armed, the government could simply disregard the safeguards. Why? Because nobody could stop them. The system only works if the people can defend it. Also, you must remember that people have the advantage of sheer numbers. The number of people in the nation is far greater than the number of people in the military.

I don't mind gun ownership but this kind of argumentation is just shitty. "Safeguarding the system" is total bs.

The military has considerably superior hardware, organisation and logistics. The people of the nation aren't as organised as you somehow imagine them to be and not a all of them would actually stand up against the government through an armed resistance, reducing the numbers of your "safeguard" significantly.

This crazy "what if the government goes evil" scenario is just fucked up rhetoric born from...I suppose massively disproportionate fear and a dash of insecurity?

Large numbers of servicepersons would simply refuse to obey orders that required them to take action against the US citizenry en masse.
There's even an organisation dedicated to it (also open to police officers and the like), the Oathkeepers.

Not really. Virtually every publicized mass shooting in recent times has taken place in a "gun-free zone." It's hardly surprising that no one was around to stop them in such cases.

There have been several attempted mass shootings stopped by a concealed carrier in recent years.

I'm pretty sure that's false. Link please

30% of all mass shootings occur in schools, which are gun free zones. A further 40% occur in businesses, some of which will have "gun-free" policies, and 12% occur at "other" - described as military bases or churches. 20% of shootings occur outside.

Ironically, military bases are pretty much "gun-free zones" - in that there are policies preventing the arming of many personnel on base.
http://leb.fbi.gov/2014/january/active- ... 00-to-2012

For which part...?

mass shootings stopped by concealed carry, because only 1 has been stopped in the past 30 years, and several others have had the killer killed but after the act of shooting had occured and really did more harm than good.

Also more guns in the hands of strangers in any given scenario = more chaos and confusion.

According to the link I just posted above, from the FBI, it's 3 in the twelve years 2000-2012.
In half of all instances in those years, the shooter was physically stopped by police or citizens - a third of those by citizens, before police were able to arrive on-scene.
http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/au ... tatistics/
Here's a comparison intended to be qualitative, but illustrative, between the resolution of events stopped by civilians and by police, highlighting the role that civilians with firearms play in some shootings.

Note that while the FBI event resolution chart separates the pre-police resolution events of "stopped by civilians", and "shooter stops (suicide/leaves)", while this comparison states that several shooters committed suicide or left when presented with armed civilians.
One need not actually kill a shooter oneself in order to end his attack.

And how well did the "superior hardware, organisation, and logistics" fare in Vietnam, among the common people? Citizens may not be as organized as the military, but they can still defend themselves against them, with the right weapons.
Also, my argument is based on logic and knowledge of human nature, not massive fear and insecurity.

Well, we pretty much destroyed Vietnam, but we could not win because we didn't understand the environment. Also I'm pretty sure crime is a much more realistic issue than the Government suddenly becoming a dictatorship and killing of it's own revenue producers and destroying their international reputation and wrecking any future influence like at all.....just saying.....

Americans understood the environment very well. Are you unfamiliar with cartography?
The environment didn't suit American tactics.

Well, we pretty much destroyed Vietnam, but we could not win because we didn't understand the environment. Also I'm pretty sure crime is a much more realistic issue than the Government suddenly becoming a dictatorship and killing of it's own revenue producers and destroying their international reputation and wrecking any future influence like at all.....just saying.....

Destroyed Vietnam? We got our hind ends handed to us in Vietnam, forcing us to withdraw. The government didn't do that, the people did.
Also, some countries don't care about international reputation reputation. But you're right. Crime is a much more serious issue. I'm just citing all the logical points here.

The US military destroyed the forces of the north in combat every time they met.
The US military withdrew under political pressure at home over the Tet Offensive, which was portrayed in US media as some successful penetration deep behind American lines when it had been broadly a failed insurgency.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Well, we pretty much destroyed Vietnam, but we could not win because we didn't understand the environment. Also I'm pretty sure crime is a much more realistic issue than the Government suddenly becoming a dictatorship and killing of it's own revenue producers and destroying their international reputation and wrecking any future influence like at all.....just saying.....

Destroyed Vietnam? We got our hind ends handed to us in Vietnam, forcing us to withdraw. The government didn't do that, the people did.
Also, some countries don't care about international reputation reputation. But you're right. Crime is a much more serious issue. I'm just citing all the logical points here.

Actually, no. We completely destroyed the regular forces of Vietnam in almost every engagement, and very nearly wiped out the Viet Cong during the Tet Offensive. The media however, portrayed it as otherwise, which lead to the unrest and demands for withdraw.

[South East Europe]

Here's the thing: Wal-Mart is not public property. Furthermore, it's legal to carry a gun but not to incite panic. If I'm at Wal-Mart and I see a guy brandishing a weapon then I'll most likely be terrified. As a woman that has had her life threatened for being transsexual by people with the legal right to carry a gun, I would feel intimidated by such a situation. Where I live, I can't change my legal Gender for any reason. Also, I don't have the ability to change my legal name yet cause I recently moved since I had to get out of an abusive relationship. Beyond that, I've been sexually and physically assaulted on numerous occasions by people with access to guns. Also, roughly 6000 gun-related homicides occur each year in the U.S. alone. So, it's best to remove the temptation from gun-toting lunatics who think they need to bring a gun to the YMCA. Also, gun ownership is a privilege afforded to law-abiding citizens, carrying a gun onto private property and refusing to leave is a felony so you are nothing more than a domestic terrorist at that point.

[Russadonia]

I get this. I really do.
That doesn't mean it isn't stupid. This dude probably thought he was preventing another Newtown, Aurora, Columbine, Tucson, Baltimore/Washington, Westside, and so many others. In the only industrialized nation where mass shootings regularly happen, in a violent culture saturated in way-too-easy-to-obtain firearms, I can't really blame him. He was unsure and acted (bravely) to stop a possible shooter. The man saw a device invented and used for killing and acted to prevent that from happening. What if it was the opposite? What if this man intended to cause harm? The tackler would have been applauded, called a hero and given a short segment on cable news.

Don't misunderstand me, I don't believe in banning firearms altogether, just much stricter regulation and licensing.

[Imperializt Russia]

He wasn't brandishing.
Brandishing requires one to have the weapon out.

[Tyrinth]

Here's the thing: Wal-Mart is not public property. Furthermore, it's legal to carry a gun but not to incite panic. If I'm at Wal-Mart and I see a guy brandishing a weapon then I'll most likely be terrified. As a woman that has had her life threatened for being transsexual by people with the legal right to carry a gun, I would feel intimidated by such a situation. Where I live, I can't change my legal Gender for any reason. Also, I don't have the ability to change my legal name yet cause I recently moved since I had to get out of an abusive relationship. Beyond that, I've been sexually and physically assaulted on numerous occasions by people with access to guns. Also, roughly 6000 gun-related homicides occur each year in the U.S. alone. So, it's best to remove the temptation from gun-toting lunatics who think they need to bring a gun to the YMCA. Also, gun ownership is a privilege afforded to law-abiding citizens, carrying a gun onto private property and refusing to leave is a felony so you are nothing more than a domestic terrorist at that point.

What on earth are you talking about?

Half of this post borders on non sequitur...

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Here's the thing: Wal-Mart is not public property. Furthermore, it's legal to carry a gun but not to incite panic. If I'm at Wal-Mart and I see a guy brandishing a weapon then I'll most likely be terrified. As a woman that has had her life threatened for being transsexual by people with the legal right to carry a gun, I would feel intimidated by such a situation. Where I live, I can't change my legal Gender for any reason. Also, I don't have the ability to change my legal name yet cause I recently moved since I had to get out of an abusive relationship. Beyond that, I've been sexually and physically assaulted on numerous occasions by people with access to guns. Also, roughly 6000 gun-related homicides occur each year in the U.S. alone. So, it's best to remove the temptation from gun-toting lunatics who think they need to bring a gun to the YMCA. Also, gun ownership is a privilege afforded to law-abiding citizens, carrying a gun onto private property and refusing to leave is a felony so you are nothing more than a domestic terrorist at that point.

He was not brandishing the weapon. At all. He also did not refuse to leave, as no one asked him to. He continually responded that he had a permit and was tackled anyway. Does no one bother reading anymore?

If someone has a CC and brings it to the Y, they are not a "gun toting lunatic". They are a citizen exercising their right.

[North Calaveras]

Here's the thing: Wal-Mart is not public property. Furthermore, it's legal to carry a gun but not to incite panic. If I'm at Wal-Mart and I see a guy brandishing a weapon then I'll most likely be terrified. As a woman that has had her life threatened for being transsexual by people with the legal right to carry a gun, I would feel intimidated by such a situation. Where I live, I can't change my legal Gender for any reason. Also, I don't have the ability to change my legal name yet cause I recently moved since I had to get out of an abusive relationship. Beyond that, I've been sexually and physically assaulted on numerous occasions by people with access to guns. Also, roughly 6000 gun-related homicides occur each year in the U.S. alone. So, it's best to remove the temptation from gun-toting lunatics who think they need to bring a gun to the YMCA. Also, gun ownership is a privilege afforded to law-abiding citizens, carrying a gun onto private property and refusing to leave is a felony so you are nothing more than a domestic terrorist at that point.

1.He wasn't carrying it to incite panic(which seems like what your pointing to)
2. Then your fear is irrational, just because you see a firearm and run makes you sound delusional, what you should be worried about is intent not what he/she has.
3. It's sickening that you hide behind transgenderism as an excuse for more gun control, im a gay married man and I am a huge supporterer of the second amendment because I want the ability to defend myself from assholes.
3. gun-toting lunatics? havn't heard that one before
4.gun ownership is a RIGHT not a privlege.
5. carring a gun on private property does not make you a domestic terrorist, it may make you a trespasser however.

[Chedastan]

You know this sort of raises a bunch of interesting questions. I mean for one thing, wouldn't it technically go against a lot of instincts to let an armed, non-authority figure go about without question? I mean you don't know who that guy is, or what he does, or what he's intending to do. I mean I imagined in most countries, if someone did that, they would probably be either criminals, terrorists, poachers, or insurgents (assuming they're packing the sort of heat you wouldn't expect on a mere hunter). So I think realistically, one could have a reasonable suspicion to think that some random guy they had no idea about, who is armed, is intending on maliciously using their weapon on the populace. Now to further add to this, you could implement plausible deniability, or I guess in this case, maybe plausible acceptability? Because you can't technically deny that person doesn't have malicious indent, or deny they aren't in an insurgent group you just haven't heard about, or deny they couldn't be a lone wolf terrorist. And technically in a sense, just because there isn't evidence founded, doesn't rule out the possibly of evidence.

Okay I think I might had gone a bit overboard, but hey there's that to think about, or not...

[The Black Forrest]

Derp he is a liberal trying to take mah guns!

That's the problem with concealed weapons. I would rather see him tackle a gun wearer rather then assume he is legal.

[Russadonia]

Here's the thing: Wal-Mart is not public property. Furthermore, it's legal to carry a gun but not to incite panic. If I'm at Wal-Mart and I see a guy brandishing a weapon then I'll most likely be terrified. As a woman that has had her life threatened for being transsexual by people with the legal right to carry a gun, I would feel intimidated by such a situation. Where I live, I can't change my legal Gender for any reason. Also, I don't have the ability to change my legal name yet cause I recently moved since I had to get out of an abusive relationship. Beyond that, I've been sexually and physically assaulted on numerous occasions by people with access to guns. Also, roughly 6000 gun-related homicides occur each year in the U.S. alone. So, it's best to remove the temptation from gun-toting lunatics who think they need to bring a gun to the YMCA. Also, gun ownership is a privilege afforded to law-abiding citizens, carrying a gun onto private property and refusing to leave is a felony so you are nothing more than a domestic terrorist at that point.

1.He wasn't carrying it to incite panic(which seems like what your pointing to)
2. Then your fear is irrational, just because you see a firearm and run makes you sound delusional, what you should be worried about is intent not what he/she has.
3. It's sickening that you hide behind transgenderism as an excuse for more gun control, im a gay married man and I am a huge supporterer of the second amendment because I want the ability to defend myself from assholes.
3. gun-toting lunatics? havn't heard that one before
4.gun ownership is a RIGHT not a privlege.
5. carring a gun on private property does not make you a domestic terrorist, it may make you a trespasser however.

I don't think it matters that his intention wasn't to cause panic, but rather that someone saw him conceal it, feared for what could happen, and acted to prevent it. It isn't fair for you to tell her that her fear of guns is irrational or delusional after she admitted to being abused by people with guns, in fact I think a response like that is healthy.

I would definitely call owning a gun a privilege rather than a right. I would call voting a right, and yet, in many parts of the country its much easier for a convicted felon to illegally obtain a gun than legally vote. Priorities.

That's the problem with concealed weapons. I would rather see him tackle a gun wearer rather then assume he is legal.

Yes, absolutely.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Derp he is a liberal trying to take mah guns!

That's the problem with concealed weapons. I would rather see him tackle a gun wearer rather then assume he is legal.

Really wish I received money for how often stereotypes are used in this thread.

That isn't very good logic to apply to any situation. If you are really that unnerved by a man clearly going about daily business and not acting suspicious with a gun, simply ask to see his permit.

[North Calaveras]

Derp he is a liberal trying to take mah guns!

That's the problem with concealed weapons. I would rather see him tackle a gun wearer rather then assume he is legal.

im military police, maybe I should just assume people are doing something illegal and detain them...
(sarcasm obviously)

[Bezkoshtovnya]

1.He wasn't carrying it to incite panic(which seems like what your pointing to)
2. Then your fear is irrational, just because you see a firearm and run makes you sound delusional, what you should be worried about is intent not what he/she has.
3. It's sickening that you hide behind transgenderism as an excuse for more gun control, im a gay married man and I am a huge supporterer of the second amendment because I want the ability to defend myself from assholes.
3. gun-toting lunatics? havn't heard that one before
4.gun ownership is a RIGHT not a privlege.
5. carring a gun on private property does not make you a domestic terrorist, it may make you a trespasser however.

I don't think it matters that his intention wasn't to cause panic, but rather that someone saw him conceal it, feared for what could happen, and acted to prevent it. It isn't fair for you to tell her that her fear of guns is irrational or delusional after she admitted to being abused by people with guns, in fact I think a response like that is healthy.

I would definitely call owning a gun a privilege rather than a right. I would call voting a right, and yet, in many parts of the country its much easier for a convicted felon to illegally obtain a gun than legally vote. Priorities.

It is a right in the US, no matter what you wish to call it. That doesn't mean it can't be taken away from you however, should you abuse it.

[Russadonia]

Derp he is a liberal trying to take mah guns!

That's the problem with concealed weapons. I would rather see him tackle a gun wearer rather then assume he is legal.

Really wish I received money for how often stereotypes are used in this thread.

That isn't very good logic to apply to any situation. If you are really that unnerved by a man clearly going about daily business and not acting suspicious with a gun, simply ask to see his permit.

Guns are suspicious.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Really wish I received money for how often stereotypes are used in this thread.

That isn't very good logic to apply to any situation. If you are really that unnerved by a man clearly going about daily business and not acting suspicious with a gun, simply ask to see his permit.

Guns are suspicious.

No, people are suspicious.

[The Black Forrest]

Derp he is a liberal trying to take mah guns!

That's the problem with concealed weapons. I would rather see him tackle a gun wearer rather then assume he is legal.

Really wish I received money for how often stereotypes are used in this thread.

That isn't very good logic to apply to any situation. If you are really that unnerved by a man clearly going about daily business and not acting suspicious with a gun, simply ask to see his permit.

*shrugs* What is the need to carry a weapon to walmart? They not confessing something?

How many people can tell what is a legal permit?