Community Chat

[MaggieMack]

I have read many stories written about this, and they have mentioned there was an off-duty policeman handling security outside the venue and engaged the murderer but he was able to escape inside the building and began shooting almost immediately.

[Laura14]

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@Laura14 wrote:

---

@ChynnaBlue wrote:

---

@Laura14 wrote:

---

@Maudelynn wrote:

The contradictions abound!  We need to demand stepped-up security everywhere we go!  Use any means we can, including preventing people from entering venues while armed- metal detectors and wanding will catch those armed people.

But we need everyone to be armed because perhaps someone, who is a good shot, can stop a would-be perp.

Can't have it both ways.  It's a complete contradiction.

---

I think it is an either/or.  If you don't have detectors or security in place, I think it's something to think about to allow licensed holders to carry.   

---

The Orlando shooter carried legal guns on him and had both a security license and a conceal carry license. So no, this solves nothing.

---

My point was the people inside had no weapons because of security that was not up and running when the shooter entered so how do we ever know?  Had the security been in place, he wouldn't have gotten in presumably.  Or, if the people inside had access to lethal force, more people may have survived.    

---

You are assuming by allowing civilians to carry guns that they are all good shooters and that no friendly fire will occur?

---

I'm not getting into every scenario there could possibly be.  Obviously, people are running on instinct and adrenaline in these situations.  One of the patrons held a door closed yesterday so the gunman couldn't get to them all the while knowing he was also keeping people from escaping.  If you were his mother, would you really blame him for trying to save his own life?

I am not a parent but if, god forbid, my child was cornered in a nightclub with a gunman inside and had access to a weapon, I would hope they would take the opportunity to possibly save their life and defend themselves.  Talking someone down with an assault rifle just doesn't do the job.  And while there may be friendly fire, there could also be the other lives not taken when and if the bullet does hit the mark.  It works both ways.        

[MaggieMack]

Another scary thought? The perp was employed by a company that provides security services for 95% of our nuclear power facilities. It makes you wonder, and worry.

[Laura14]

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@Laura14 wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@Laura14 wrote:

---

@ChynnaBlue wrote:

---

@Laura14 wrote:

---

@Maudelynn wrote:

The contradictions abound!  We need to demand stepped-up security everywhere we go!  Use any means we can, including preventing people from entering venues while armed- metal detectors and wanding will catch those armed people.

But we need everyone to be armed because perhaps someone, who is a good shot, can stop a would-be perp.

Can't have it both ways.  It's a complete contradiction.

---

I think it is an either/or.  If you don't have detectors or security in place, I think it's something to think about to allow licensed holders to carry.   

---

The Orlando shooter carried legal guns on him and had both a security license and a conceal carry license. So no, this solves nothing.

---

My point was the people inside had no weapons because of security that was not up and running when the shooter entered so how do we ever know?  Had the security been in place, he wouldn't have gotten in presumably.  Or, if the people inside had access to lethal force, more people may have survived.    

---

You are assuming by allowing civilians to carry guns that they are all good shooters and that no friendly fire will occur?

---

I'm not getting into every scenario there could possibly be.  Obviously, people are running on instinct and adrenaline in these situations.  One of the patrons held a door closed yesterday so the gunman couldn't get to them all the while knowing he was also keeping people from escaping.  If you were his mother, would you really blame him for trying to save his own life?

I am not a parent but if, god forbid, my child was cornered in a nightclub with a gunman inside and had access to a weapon, I would hope they would take the opportunity to possibly save their life and defend themselves.  Talking someone down with an assault rifle just doesn't do the job.  And while there may be friendly fire, there could also be the other lives not taken when and if the bullet does hit the mark.  It works both ways.        

---

You are by blaming the victims for not packing heat. SMH.

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom  That is not what I said in this or any other post.  Re-read.  You may not agree with me but you may not misstate my words.  

[AngusandBuddhasMom]

---

@Laura14 wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@Laura14 wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@Laura14 wrote:

---

@ChynnaBlue wrote:

---

@Laura14 wrote:

---

@Maudelynn wrote:

The contradictions abound!  We need to demand stepped-up security everywhere we go!  Use any means we can, including preventing people from entering venues while armed- metal detectors and wanding will catch those armed people.

But we need everyone to be armed because perhaps someone, who is a good shot, can stop a would-be perp.

Can't have it both ways.  It's a complete contradiction.

---

I think it is an either/or.  If you don't have detectors or security in place, I think it's something to think about to allow licensed holders to carry.   

---

The Orlando shooter carried legal guns on him and had both a security license and a conceal carry license. So no, this solves nothing.

---

My point was the people inside had no weapons because of security that was not up and running when the shooter entered so how do we ever know?  Had the security been in place, he wouldn't have gotten in presumably.  Or, if the people inside had access to lethal force, more people may have survived.    

---

You are assuming by allowing civilians to carry guns that they are all good shooters and that no friendly fire will occur?

---

I'm not getting into every scenario there could possibly be.  Obviously, people are running on instinct and adrenaline in these situations.  One of the patrons held a door closed yesterday so the gunman couldn't get to them all the while knowing he was also keeping people from escaping.  If you were his mother, would you really blame him for trying to save his own life?

I am not a parent but if, god forbid, my child was cornered in a nightclub with a gunman inside and had access to a weapon, I would hope they would take the opportunity to possibly save their life and defend themselves.  Talking someone down with an assault rifle just doesn't do the job.  And while there may be friendly fire, there could also be the other lives not taken when and if the bullet does hit the mark.  It works both ways.        

---

You are by blaming the victims for not packing heat. SMH.

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom  That is not what I said in this or any other post.  Re-read.  

---

By making a scenario inwhich people are allowed to carry guns. I am saying you are imagining what would have been. 

[goldensrbest]

Here is the truth,as i see it, we as a nation cannot agree on this,and more issues, so it will only get worse,and we will still be trying to figure out WHY, it is evil,and it just continues.

[terrier3]

---

@MaggieMack wrote:

I have read many stories written about this, and they have mentioned there was an off-duty policeman handling security outside the venue and engaged the murderer but he was able to escape inside the building and began shooting almost immediately.

---

Yes. The off duty police officer was in uniform and had a gun. But he was no match for the superior firepower of the perp.

So no, a trained officer with a gun can't always stop a determined bad guy with no regard for his own life or for others.

Plus, the situation was similar to the CO theater. It was dark and noisy. A guy with a gun on CO didn't fire because he couldn't see his target well in the dark, didn't want to hit victims and didn't want to be shot by police himself.

This was a dark, VERY noisy club. Chances of taking out rhe shooter would be slim.