Giffords Shooting Leads Two Lawmakers to Carry Guns

Photo-fish wrote: Firing back when in a crowd of people is something you are trained NOT to do.

OK, she was shot point blank and so were a few others. So if you saw a man shooting someone walking at you a few yards or feet away, are you telling me it is better if you don't have a gun to fire back and protect yourself? Well you can try that, and pray he misses, but I will damn sure have a gun and shoot him before he shoots me or others.

Agreed. If you have a clear shot, take it. But you will have to live with the consequences if your shot(s) takes a life other than your intended target.
I am not sure the "Good Samaritan Law" will cover that.

The Viking wrote:

Scruffy wrote:

Martin Ent Inc wrote:

Scruffy wrote: I'd have to ask how effective a gun would be carried by a lawmaker.

I think it would be more effective just to have more police protection closer to the politician.

Spoken like a true liberal.

My point is that the lawmaker, in most speaking situations, would not be able to assess the situation and speak at the same time. The politician would be busy answering questions, speaking, etc. A police detail, or even body guards, would be better equipped to protect the politician (with weapons) than the politician would be. Does that make it clear?

And if a politician is trained with their weapon and they see a man shooting people walking towards them, then they would have time to draw the weapon and fire back and maybe prevent a lot of what happened. Who pays the bodyguards at all the events around the country? The politicians or the taxpayers?

I don't know who pays the bodyguards or police patrols.

I think that in an Arizona situation, this gunman was able to unload his 30 round clip (I think it was 30 rounds) in just a few seconds. Initial human reaction would be to duck or get out of the way, unless you are a highly trained weapons expert. This guy was finally stopped when he paused to reload.

LadyJazzer wrote: I agree... It's a shame in this day and age they have to arm themselves against the wackos...But as I suggested in one of my earlier [allegedly 'hateful'] posts, if a few of them get mowed down, it might make some of the other violent types reconsider.

One would hope, but in the case of a wacko with a bad case of worms in his head, I don't think it would make a difference.

[quote="ScruffyI think that in an Arizona situation, this gunman was able to unload his 30 round clip (I think it was 30 rounds) in just a few seconds. Initial human reaction would be to duck or get out of the way, unless you are a highly trained weapons expert. This guy was finally stopped when he paused to reload.[/quote]

I also heard it was a 30 round clip. I can't imagine the shooter getting off 30 rounds in a few seconds, he wasn’t a trained shooter, and he obiviously aimed. The Glock 9 he was using is a semi-automatic, you only get one round for every trigger pull. The lady that grabbed his second clip had time to react and I’m pretty sure the two guys who tackled him were not part of the group meeting with the Congresswoman, but were simply passers by. What I’m saying is 30 seconds is an etenity in a gun fight, and we don’t yet know but I bet his shooting spree lasted minutes not seconds.

The ladies at the salon next door said it lasted a few minutes.