Everytime there is another shootout that kills several people, I wonder if only someone had been there with a concealed weapon, the tradegy could have been avoided. Instead, there are more calls for gun control. DUH? Just the knowledge and risk that someone

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

in that public place, teacher, supervisor, janitor, etc. may be armed would give any killer second thoughts and save lives. These people would be required to take a safety training course to get the permit. When the economy breaks down in 6 months, there will be unhappy people searching for food and water. Public safety demands that there be some protection from these thugs. The statistics prove that the States without concealed carry permits have a higher death rate from handguns that the states that allow guns to be carried. This is a concerted attack in an attempt to confiscate and outlaw all hand guns. Don't fall for it. Florida is one of the states with a realistic statute. Check the numbers.

-- Moe (Moe@3stooges.gom), July 30, 1999


The Second Amendment is very clearly the first among equals. Luby's Cafeteria was a perfect example of how an armed citizen could have prevented possibly many deaths. In the days of the old west the laws let any man carry a gun openly. Some say this provoked fights. I agree but it also prevents them from starting. Remember that mass murderers are on a power trip. Facing equal or greater opposition forces the attcker to reconsider. And any rational man is in no hurry to pick a fight with an armed adversary.

Then again consider this story. The young man one day decided to go and take a Zen buddhism class. During one of these sessions a rape took place in such a way that it was directly in sight from within the classroom. The young man asked the teacher how they could prevent this from happening, and the Zen teacher told him to do nothing. Thinking only of the woman's safety the young man rushed outside, disregarding the teacher's words, to put a stop to the crime. But seeing the man coming the rapist then slashed the woman's throat and ran off.

Personally I am pro gun ownership and right to carry. If Barton knew that he was walking into a building full of guns he wouldn't have been so nonchelant and taken advantage of the "lack of prepardedness" on the side of the office staff and customers.

But the story is to remind us that sometimes we can do more damage by acting without thought than by sitting by and not doing anything.

-- (u@l_.C2), July 30, 1999.

Moe, you are completely correct, and the Gun Grabbers are well aware of this. But The Plan is to pass knee-jerk legislation every time such an incident happens, with the eventual aim of confiscating all firearms.

This has been going on for decades. Even if 99 out of 100 gun control initiatives are defeated, that single one that becomes law infringes further upon our rights, and then is used as a stepping stone for the next one that pushes further.

In the Atlanta incident, the killer used handguns. (Well, actually the sick bastard beat to death his family earlier, but I guess noone is going to push to literally outlaw "arms".) If, for the sake of argument, he had not been able to obtain handguns due to their being illegal, he presumably would have taken a shotgun or rifle and sawed the barrel and stock to make it just as concealable -- and probably 3 times as deadly. There is no question that a restriction on any class of firearm (e.g., handguns, "assault" rifles) is in reality just a stepping stone to obtain leverage to outlaw all of them.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), July 30, 1999.

Yeah, that Zen student was dumb. What he SHOULD'VE done was to pick the rapist off from 300 yds. with his SR-25. If done through the meditation hall window, presumably the rapist would've never seen it coming...

-- Ct Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), July 30, 1999.

Good point, or call the police department have a trained sniper do it right. Whatever, the point is think before you act.

-- (+e@g.), July 30, 1999.

"YOU WOULD THINK that a man who saved three people's lives, at considerable risk to his own, would be recognized as a hero.

But his story would be politically incorrect, so it has received virtually no media attention and his name remains unknown.

It all started when a gunman took three hostages at a San Mateo, California, shooting range. He had left a note announcing his intention to kill hostages and then himself, so this was worse than even the usual hostage situation. At this point an anonymous employee of the shooting range took one of the guns on the premises and shot the gunman, freeing the hostages.

This happened on July 6th, but have you seen the story anywhere? People get more media attention than this for recycling aluminum cans. It is politically incorrect to let it be known that guns in the hands of law-abiding private citizens can save lives as well as cost lives. Yet this has happened any number of times. There have even been cases of a policeman under fire being rescued by a private citizen with a gun. One year, more criminals were reported killed by private citizens than by the police. But it wasn't reported very widely."


"It is a matter of plain fact-- no matter how much these facts are ignored in the media-- that violent crimes have declined immediately and dramatically in virtually every case where local gun-control laws were modified to allow law-abiding citizens to readily obtain permits to carry concealed weapons. The statistics are available in a book titled "More Guns, Less Crime," written by John Lott, who teaches at the University of Chicago Law School. "

The above is from an article by Thomas Sowell at:



-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), July 31, 1999.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." --Thomas Jefferson

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at amoment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." --Thomas Jefferson

-- Lyle (eileen@idacom.net), July 31, 1999.

>> Just the knowledge and risk that someone in that public place, teacher, supervisor, janitor, etc. may be armed would give any killer second thoughts and save lives. <<

Stop and think. This killer in Atlanta, when threatened with arrest, took two pistols in his two hands and blew his brains out with both of them.

Why do you think he'd have been deterred by the idea that someone else might be shooting at him, when he shot himself, point blank? Anyone who is willing to die by self-inflicted gunfire is not about to be afraid of gunfire from concealed weapons. Duh!

-- Brian McLaughlin (bmclaughlin@bigplanet.com), July 31, 1999.


"It all started when a gunman took three hostages at a San Mateo, California, shooting range."

I've used this range, I also didn't hear about this story (was in London at the time), even so, strange(!!!) that the meejah didn't pick up on it (not...)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), July 31, 1999.

I am sure there are some brokers that are packing heat now!

In the Great Depression when people lost all their money, some took their own lives out of desperation. Now watch for more of these "I'll take everyone with me" acts. Any thoughts on why the change in attitudes? Will Y2K bring nonstop events of this type? Even a market crash could trigger a rash of these events. Time to get my concealed carry card.

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), July 31, 1999.

You nailed that one right, Count!

"Yeah, that Zen student was dumb. What he SHOULD'VE done was to pick the rapist off from 300 yds. with his SR-25."

I'm always so stiff from that cross-legged position, ain't rushing anywhere very soon. That student was probably just coming back from a bathroom break. Hey! Maybe the Zen teacher could've opened his gun closet and given the whole class free fire zone instruction! Sure, the babe was gonna die anyway, right?

-- Ahimsa (my karma@or.yours?), July 31, 1999.

The "I'll take everyone out" mindset comes from the indoctrination into VICTIMIZATION that people are subjected to in America today. The gov't is CONTINUALLY reinforcing that "It's okay that you want to ________ (insert criminal act here), because you are a VICTIM of ________ (insert group/event(s) here).

Once that indoctrination hits home, ANY AND ALL ACTS OF VIOLENCE are seen as "Well, the bastards OWE it to me..."

Look at the riots/lootings/shootings that have been occurring in the past 20 years or so. The liberal government's "entitlement" policies have started bearing fruit. (And I'm a LIFELONG Democrat, and have the precinct card to prove it!) Until we can dislodge the life- sucking liberals from the halls of gov't, these acts will just increase, while our ability to defend ourselves will disappear.

How many people know that the Supreme Court in years past UPHELD the principle that NO LAW ENFORCEMENT ANGENCY IS *REQUIRED* TO PROTECT ANY *SPECIFIC* INDIVIDUAL.... Their responsibility is ONLY to ENFORCE THE LAWS OF SOCIETY. So, if a person gets KILLED, tough sh*t. All the cops are there for is to see that PUNISHMENT is meted out for the crime.

Bottom line: EACH OF US IS COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN SELF- DEFENSE. The Supreme Court has said so, in no uncertain terms.

And that's NO SH*T.

Got guns? If you're not a gun owner, you're a victim. (The only question is WHEN you'll get to BE the victim, not IF you'll get to be one.)

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), July 31, 1999.

Brian: So maybe he would not have been deterred by the worry that a private citizen might be armed and shoot him. He would still be just as dead, with the result that perhaps lives might have been saved. And others, who might be so inclined, might in fact think twice and thereby be deterred.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), July 31, 1999.

Perhaps in a collectivist society, this is the "rational" response. The collective has caused injury, therefore the collective is responsible and must endure the consequences. Individual suicide then turns into mass murder plus optional suicide, therefore, collectives need to outlaw individual firearms rights.

Are we now a de facto collective or still a nation founded upon enumerated individual rights? Through a constant barrage of media and educational propoganda, have we becomes "responsible" to the collective first and ourselves second (if at all), or are we still responsible to ourselves first and our colectives selves as a nation second?

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), July 31, 1999.

Brian, the whole point is: if he walked into MY office with guns he would be DEAD not deterred. If he tried to enter my home he would be SHOT DEAD not deterred. To hell with deterred. He shot his victims at point blank range. I have to ask myself, would not even you pacifist anti-gun libs shoot such a madman to save the lives of nine people? On second thought, I don't know how anybody can call themselves a true American who would'nt shoot such a rabid criminal on sight.

-- doktorbob (downsouth@dixie.com), July 31, 1999.

Doktorbob: Not only shoot the bastard on sight but enjoy doing it, enjoy knowing the you have done your part to rid the world of another piece of worthless scum. You would deserve a medal. But those prick liberals would probably want YOU thrown in jail.

-- gunslinger (gotguns@home&work.watchout), August 02, 1999.

Thanks you doctorbob for taking jack to where he wanted to go in response to Brian.

I find it pathetic that stories of responsible citizens using guns to kill criminals and deter crime are routinely ignored by the media.

I have come to expect nothing less, however.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), August 02, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ