-
Join 360 other subscribers
-
Recent Posts
- DC High Court Strikes Down Magazine Ban Over 10 Rounds in Major Second Amendment Ruling – USA Carry
- Virginia Bill Could Ban Most Carry Guns in Public
- Gun trainers nationwide say women and liberals are taking more interest in classes after Alex Pretti’s shooting
- Fox News host says transgender people should be barred from gun ownership
- Government gun agency backtracks on permit denials after backlash from pro-second amendment group
Twitter Updates
Tweets by 2AmendRightorgMonthly Archives
Categories
Arizona Concealed Carry Permits; “NOT ONE” Near Massacre??
This entry was posted in In the News. Bookmark the permalink.
2nd Amendment, Shooting & Firearms Blog 
Of course you’re not going to count that lunatic the other day, right? Since the law changed anyone can carry concealed, so in effect he should count.
Mike,
He doesn’t count because I doubt he did what most of the other 161,249 law abiding citizens of AZ did and are required to do to “legally” carry a “concealed weapon”. The blood shed could have been stopped if just one concealed carry permit holder had been present to stop the massacre.
I don’t believe there was not one concealed carry guy there. I believe in Arizona at a public gathering there were several. For any number of reasons, they weren’t able to stop the guy. In fact they never made themselves known even after he was done with the shooting and attempted to reload. More than anything this proves that all that macho talk about good guys with guns preventing or minimizing these shootings is bullshit. As a gun owner, you’d have to be the type who has what it takes to intervene in a timely manner, which many don’t, and you’d have to be placed in the perfect position to do so.
In other words it’s very unlikely. But, I know that won’t stop you and your like-minded friends from continuing to spin it.
Note how MikeB does not present a shred of evidence to support his beliefs.
Note how MikeB does, however, expect you to treat his beliefs as facts (like he does), simply because he believes them.
Note how MikeB’s beliefs invariably cast firearm owners and carriers in the worst possible light.
Note how MikeB’s beliefs are repeatedly and consistently disproven and minimized by repeated instances of defensive gun uses happening across the country every day.
And, in the end, there was one law-abiding, permitted Arizona resident at the scene who was carrying a firearm – he was across the street at a Walgreens, ran towards the shooting (as opposed to away from it, which most people would do), and realized that everything was under control when he got there. He assisted in restraining the shooter, but never once drew his firearm, which, from what little we know, seems like the appropriate response.
But, nope, when reality disagrees with MikeB’s beliefs, reality is wrong. Congratulations for attracting your first troll, Winston, and so quickly at that!
Linoge has it wrong as usual. Thank god it was mercifully brief this time.
I said “I believe.” Does that sound like I’m stating facts that I expect you to believe?
Perhaps my “beliefs” cast gun owners in a bad light deservedly.
The “repeated instances of defensive gun uses happening across the country every day” are swamped by the nearly 100 violent gun deaths each day. Take away the suicides if you want, which is part of your bullshit argument, and you’ve still get a bad scene with guns.
And finally, back to the AZ shooting of one week ago, I don’t accept that the only gun owner present was across the street. Choosing to believe such obvious nonsense is what you thrive on, Linoge.
And now MikeB devolves into his standard realm of strawmen, outright lies, and denials of basic truths.
Fact 1: I never said he was “stating facts”. In truth, I was quite clear on that point.
Fact 2: Never has MikeB presented anything even approximating substantiation from his belief that gun owners, in their entirety, “deserve” to be cast in a bad light – rather, he does so to further his own hatred against firearms and firearm owners.
Fact 3: The news media, the police, and eye witnesses have repeatedly stated that the only law-abiding citizen present at the Tucson shooting who also had a firearm was the aforementioned individual at WalGreens. We have absolutely no reason, cause, or information to believe otherwise… besides the meandering rantings of a borderline insane anti-rights nut.
Here is a fun experiment, if you ever get bored of this particular troll – remove the link from his username. From previous experience, he stops commenting at any weblog that does that within a week – rather says something about his motivations, does it not?
MikeB302000,
Let go with your belief for a minute and assume that there were other armed citizens carrying near or at the scene of the Tucson shooting.
IF There were, then several common lies of the antis are in question.
1.) The gun owners will draw and fire — either hitting each other or bystanders.
We know for a fact that only the murderer shot that day.
2.) The person carrying concealed will be mistaken for the murderer and make the situation more dangerous for the cops.
We know for a fact that the police had no trouble identifying the murderer and that they weren’t endangered by any other person.
3.) The person carrying concealed will mistakenly shoot another person with a gun thinking he is the criminal.
We know for a fact that it didn’t happen. However much the media wants to spin it as ‘almost shot the wrong person’ it didn’t happen.
Time and time again, the facts show the antis like you are lying.
Bob, It’s not a question of lying. Why are you guys so in love with that word?
Assuming there were other guns in the crowd, it shows that you guys are WRONG to say guns can prevent this kind of massacre. They usually can’t.
MikeB302000,
There you go again. Show me proof where the pro-rights side that guns can ‘prevent’ every crime like this.
It has been said that concealed carry can prevent some, it has been said that concealed carry can stop them faster.
No one is claiming that Concealed Carry will prevent every crime like this.
As far as the lying, I laid out the lies you’ve repeated on your blog above.
Are you so slow you can’t figure out what I said?
Or are you just trying to drive traffic to your blog – again?
Isn’t it amazing how consistently you move around, finding new blogs to comment on — and every time you link back to your blog?
And what happens when we start removing that link? You stop commenting – could there be a correlation? Could it be you are just trolling for hits ?
I think a better question than why are we so in love with that word “lying” would be — why do you anti-rights advocates lie so often?
Why are you guys so in love with that word?
Why do you insist on lying so much and then getting pissy when we call you on it? We have countless examples of you lying throughout countless comment threads – for example, your claim that you never blamed law-abiding firearm owners for murders, assaults, and other crimes perpetrated by the law-breaking – so why do you continue to deny that you lie when they are so easily observed and identified?
Speaking of lies… false. One does not a statistic make. Assuming (and so kind of you to finally admit that you are making baseless assumptions) that there was a lawful firearm carrier in the crowd, this situation demonstrates (not proves) that in this particular circumstance, with this particular set of constraints, variables, and constants, with this particular chain of events, the assumed firearm carrier was unable or unwilling to do anything.
That ‘shows’ absolutely nothing for future events.
And, in point of fact, numerous spree shootings have been stemmed, slowed, or stopped by the timely actions of law-abiding firearm carriers – the Appalachian Law School shooting, the Tyler, Texas shooting, the Winnemucca, Nevada shooting, the Trolley Square shooting, arguably the Tacoma Mall shooting, and so forth.
In the end, though, do you even realize what you are arguing for? You are vociferously, speciously, and with malice aforethought lobbying for average citizens to be left completely defenseless and helpless in situations like these, regardless of whether they would be willing or able to fight back otherwise. On the other hand, we aregiving those same citizens the choice – to carry, to fight back, to run away, whatever – such that they might stand a chance of surviving, or helping others survive.
Why do you want to increase the number of fatalities, Mike?