My case for open carry

[Wag more]

OT 70. So there was no one armed inside the club except for the wacko Islamic murderer. One pistol inside the club aimed at Mateen would have given many more a chance at life.
I'm have never understood why you prog/lib/sec/hums have a problem with self defense.
Oh yeah, it involves personal freedom and not the gov.

 

[dogtowner]

They don't understand that calling the cops will result in a report being filed, not a bad guy being stopped.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

OT 70. So there was no one armed inside the club except for the wacko Islamic murderer. One pistol inside the club aimed at Mateen would have given many more a chance at life.
I'm have never understood why you prog/lib/sec/hums have a problem with self defense.
Oh yeah, it involves personal freedom and not the gov.

Only person here denigrating self defense is you. I have no problem with it, and have several armed pistols, and two security shotguns, loaded, in my home as we speak. Problem is that you, being the usual right wing type, have a problem with facts, and truth, when they do not meet your criteria. Then you have the usual ignorance of Dog who seems to think there was only one bartender caring for some 300+ customers.

However, you seem to think that is two armed security guards outside the club could not stop him from entering the club why one armed customer inside the club certainly could have done so. Then too, that one armed customer would be far more effective then a trained SWAT team. Well, in the alt reality fools like you, and Dog, live in. Most of us call that a "video game".

 

[Wag more]

First of all I'm not a gun nut. I have an antique 22 and my childhood BB gun and thats all. Way fewer guns than OT70.
My point in this thread is you can't rely on the gov to protect you. The FBI checked this guy out and cleared him. Pulse is located near downtown Orlando near the hospital district and the Orlando police still took 3 hours to break in and shoot this wacko. (Actually they knocked down a wall with an armored vehicle). And supposedly there was an armed off duty cop outside who did not stop Mateen.
So lets sum this up:

1. The FBI cleared Omar Mateen for gun ownership.
2. The Orlando police took 3 hours to stop Mateen.
3. An off duty cop did not stop Mateen from entering Pulse.

One of my biggest beefs with prog/libs is reliance on the gov for everything. The national and local govs failed and failed miserably at Pulse. The swat team finally shot Mateen 3 hours too late.
One shot from an armed bartender could have saved many innocent lives which is something the gov did not do.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

One of my biggest beefs with prog/libs is reliance on the gov for everything. The national and local govs failed and failed miserably at Pulse. The swat team finally shot Mateen 3 hours too late.
One shot from an armed bartender could have saved many innocent lives which is something the gov did not do.

Again you have your "facts" ass backwards. The SWAT team was there in 20 minutes. However, by that time Mateen had barricaded himself in the bathroom, and had hostages. The SWAT team then tried to negotiate with him which is where your timeline of three hours comes in.

Then we have your bartender argument. I don't know if you have ever been to a bar, and your words indicate you have not, however, there were over 300 customers in that bar. A bar counter is most often set away from the entrance. So, you have some 100 people between you, and the shooter, and you think the bartender could have shot Mateen? And yet armed off duty cops that saw him coming, had a direct line of sight to him, could not?

Now, lets talk arms. Mateen had a pistol, and an AR-15. Not sure what he had in the way of magazines. I have a Glock 27 with 2 30 round mags, 2 15 round mags, and 2 10 round mags. That is 110 rounds. I can get off all 110 rounds in less then 5 minutes. I sold my AR-15, however, with that I had 10 20 round clips. 200 rounds, and I could get that off in another 5 minutes. 300 rounds, 10 minutes. What are you going to do?

 

[dogtowner]

First of all I'm not a gun nut. I have an antique 22 and my childhood BB gun and thats all. Way fewer guns than OT70.
My point in this thread is you can't rely on the gov to protect you. The FBI checked this guy out and cleared him. Pulse is located near downtown Orlando near the hospital district and the Orlando police still took 3 hours to break in and shoot this wacko. (Actually they knocked down a wall with an armored vehicle). And supposedly there was an armed off duty cop outside who did not stop Mateen.
So lets sum this up:

1. The FBI cleared Omar Mateen for gun ownership.
2. The Orlando police took 3 hours to stop Mateen.
3. An off duty cop did not stop Mateen from entering Pulse.

One of my biggest beefs with prog/libs is reliance on the gov for everything. The national and local govs failed and failed miserably at Pulse. The swat team finally shot Mateen 3 hours too late.
One shot from an armed bartender could have saved many innocent lives which is something the gov did not do.

Bartender maybe not if he was in a different room. An armed anyone maybe so if they were where he was and nit the first guy shot.
An armed mist of them and Omar doesn't even try.

 

[Wag more]

OT70. If you had been there and armed would you have tried to take down Mateen?

 

[Old_Trapper70]

OT70. If you had been there and armed would you have tried to take down Mateen?

Not if it meant shooting someone else. You do not shoot through a crowd in an attempt to shoot another.

Besides that, you are now deflecting from what was originally said.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Bartender maybe not if he was in a different room. An armed anyone maybe so if they were where he was and nit the first guy shot.
An armed mist of them and Omar doesn't even try.

Again the fool speaks out. Mateen was intent on killing others, and also on getting himself killed. No matter how many were armed he would still have done what he did, and would have killed many before the first shot was taken to stop him.

 

[Wag more]

More than one government agency failed and failed miserably in the Pulse murders.

First the FBI cleared this wacko.

Next the armed Orlando policeman did not stop Mateen outside.

Next that officer did not enter Pulse after he heard shots from inside.

And then after Mateen retreated to the bathroom area he continued his killing and the police were still in negotiation mode.

There are times the authorities should handle problems and there are times the public must protect themselves.

So OT70 let me rephrase my question to you. If you were in Pulse and armed and could maneuver yourself to get a clear shot at Mateen would you have taken a shot at him?

 

[The Scotsman]

If you were in Pulse and armed and could maneuver yourself to get a clear shot at Mateen would you have taken a shot at him?

Would the music have been turned off?
Would there be "normal" lighting?
Would he have been sober?
Would he have been high on mind oggling substances?
Would he have situational awareness?
Is he with someone "dear" to him?
Would he have been the only one with weapon visible?
Would he have been willing to tackle an armed opponent?
Would he have been calm?
Would he have clearly declared his intent and purpose to those around him?
Would those around him have understood his declared intent?
Is he close to the assailent?
Is he a good shot?
What's the calibre of the weapon?
What's his weapon's load?
etc...etc...etc...

or is your point that if you feel the opportunity is right you pull out your weapon irrespective of circumstance and start shooting? Just a thought, do you think it a good idea to allow patrons to carry loaded weapons unchecked into nightclubs where alcohol and drugs are used and freely avaliable and where the environment is distortionately light and with loud confusing noise?

 

[Wag more]

So Scotty is your point that you do nothing until conditions are perfect? Do you drive your car in the rain? If so you didn't wait until conditions were perfect. And a car can be deadly if you lose control under less than perfect conditions.

My point is the feds and local gov blew this big time and their mishandling resulted in far more deaths than necessary. There are 49 dead and over 50 were hospitalized.

If you can't rely on the gov you gotta do it yourself.

If any patron or bartender had been armed there is a high probability they could have saved lives which is something the gov did not do.

The degree of reliance on the gov is perhaps the biggest diff between conservatives and prog/lib/sec/hums.

The gov that governs best governs least.

 

[The Scotsman]

So Scotty is your point that you do nothing until conditions are perfect?

I assume that is the level that your SWAT teams try and attain. It would be rather unfortunate for them to blast their way into a situation for which they have not trained, are not prepared for and not equipped to undertake and then stand there and say "ooops" as they assess the results..... should perfection not be the default parameter when using deadly force? Or is the "ooops" defence valid in a court of law?

My point is the feds and local gov blew this big time and their mishandling resulted in far more deaths than necessary. There are 49 dead and over 50 were hospitalized.

Is there an official report on their actions that is open to public scrutiny that you could share?
The only information I can see is that various agencies looked at this guy and determined that no further action was required.... unfortunately that particular horse has now fucked off out of the paddock and dissappeared over the hill. Has there been any reports that questioned the rationale of these agencies and the reasons for their inaction/actions?

The degree of reliance on the gov is perhaps the biggest diff between conservatives and prog/lib/sec/hums. The gov that governs best governs least.

Mystifying.... can you develope this hypothesis in the context of your "right to open carry"? I assume that you feel government has no right to enact and enforce gun laws, carry laws, or indeed any form of suppression on your supposed right to arm?

Oh yeah.... and you haven't yet give a clear reason for your case "to open carry"? The terrorist and the bartender story hasn't turned out to be the best example so far has it... can you broaden your argument a tad maybe?

 

[Wag more]

So Scotty you want to see a report prepared by the gov reviewing another branch of the govs action?
So one branch of the gov clears the other is a fore ordained conclusion.

To save many lives ALL that was needed was a loaded hand gun in the hands of a trained bartender.

Face it, Scotty. The gov blew it big time. I know that is difficult for a prog/lib/sec/hum to accept but it is the truth.

And Scotty, this will be my last post here so I give you the last say. Enjoy.

 

[dogtowner]

Scotty makes a valid point as the first time there is collateral damage the howling will be massive.
How about this...
IF you want to ban weapons you wand prospective patrons.
At least that levels the field