TexasCHLforum.com

Waco Kid wrote:I thought that one of the people who stopped the attack was a concealed license holder - but that he did not fire.

I could only imagine what would have happened if someone started firing back at the shooter... in a crowd. I think that would have been even worse. I'm almost *glad* nobody shot back at him - minimized collateral damage. I do wish it would have been stopped earlier though.

Why do you think it would have been worse? One always has to know what lies beyond their target...if there was an opportunity to take down this scum, why not do it?

Waco Kid wrote:I thought that one of the people who stopped the attack was a concealed license holder - but that he did not fire.

I could only imagine what would have happened if someone started firing back at the shooter... in a crowd. I think that would have been even worse. I'm almost *glad* nobody shot back at him - minimized collateral damage. I do wish it would have been stopped earlier though.

I've been in political events, and the crowds there act just like those at rock concerts -- don't plan on personal space, and don't put anything valuable in your pockets. I doubt very much that there would have been a clear field for "shooting back" in this case, especially since he was evidently in the heart of the crowd, very close to the prime actors.

Well, it's just my imagination of the scene, but I figure this guy was standing in a crowd. I have no idea what was going on, but I'd imagine people were ducking and running all over the place. To have a shootout with people running between you and your target - and the people behind and around your target - opens up a can of worms about injuring more innocent people. What if your shot goes through his shoulder and hits someone behind the shooter?

I could just imagine how the anti-guns would spin it. Injuries caused by the "good guy" shooter would be just as bad as injuries by the "bad guy" shooter.

Waco Kid wrote:Well, it's just my imagination of the scene, but I figure this guy was standing in a crowd. I have no idea what was going on, but I'd imagine people were ducking and running all over the place. To have a shootout with people running between you and your target - and the people behind and around your target - opens up a can of worms about injuring more innocent people. What if your shot goes through his shoulder and hits someone behind the shooter?

I could just imagine how the anti-guns would spin it. Injuries caused by the "good guy" shooter would be just as bad as injuries by the "bad guy" shooter.

We could imagine and 'what-if' all day long...and your examples prove my point of knowing what is beyond your target. If people are running and scurrying around, that is a 'no-shoot' scenario.

'What if' you use the chaos and confusion to your advantage, drop to one knee (or down on your side), and shoot through the goblins head with a trajectory towards the ceiling? I could imagine doing that...then again, I wasn't there.

You folks are taking this thread way off topic.

That shooting affecting legislation:

This is just "barely" on that topic, but ...

One of the first "statements" of concern for her and her family's welfare was from the Brady Campaign ... it was "nice" but I suspicion Mrs. Brady is "recruiting" (to influence future legislation, and potentially the victim and her family) made me a bit put off by the statement.

Perhaps it'll help the cause to note that, the only person in the area we KNOW had a CHL ran toward the shots and helped restrain the shooter.

OldSchool wrote: Your post also brings to mind the SCOTUS decision that LEO's are not held accountable for protecting the lives of citizens (I wish I could find that decision for a reference), but there is full accountability when LEO's, Security, et al., fail to protect the lives of national figures. 'Nuff said....

Edit: Grammar.

Here's a start. There have been many decisions. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasle ... ction.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

lrb111 wrote:

OldSchool wrote: Your post also brings to mind the SCOTUS decision that LEO's are not held accountable for protecting the lives of citizens (I wish I could find that decision for a reference), but there is full accountability when LEO's, Security, et al., fail to protect the lives of national figures. 'Nuff said....

Edit: Grammar.

Here's a start. There have been many decisions. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasle ... ction.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you so much, that's not a bad writeup, and the references help a lot.

Waco Kid wrote:I thought that one of the people who stopped the attack was a concealed license holder - but that he did not fire.

I could only imagine what would have happened if someone started firing back at the shooter... in a crowd. I think that would have been even worse. I'm almost *glad* nobody shot back at him - minimized collateral damage. I do wish it would have been stopped earlier though.

One of the eyewitnesses stated on Dateline this evening that he reached for his gun but never drew it because they had already tackled the shooter. I don't see why you would be glad nobody shot back at him. If he had managed to reload, I would hope and pray that the gun owners in the crowd would have executed him on the spot. Would you prefer that he be allowed to continue shooting until he ran out of ammo?

I am hopeing the Congresswoman will recover and if she really is pro 2nd admendment, she will give a ststement poo pooing any talk of gun control over this.

Galveston Redneck

The Cold Texan

There is an awful lot of talk in the news about the extended mags. Though I heard he also had two regular mags for the pistol as well. If anything I fear this might help push policy on ammo capacity restrictions if not worst. Though no matter where this scene would have occur would be tragic it does not help that it occurred in Arizona which just passed legislation that allows any legal law abiding resident of that state to carry a weapon concealed without a permit. The anti gun people will be all over this! I just hope that members of our new congress will keep to their principals and not submit to knee-jerk reactions and use the wisdom to not trample on our natural rights of self defense and freedom of speech when coming up with a solution to prevent this horrific act from occurring again. This just goes to show that first and foremost we are all responsible for the safety of our communities and ourselves such as the brave individuals that would not let evil prevail and tackled the shooter at great personal risk. This people are a great example of American bravery are virtue.

if the Rep house does stand up for 2nA Rights, then our rights are in jeapordy. Good thing Gun ownership will never ever banned. gun restrictions will be annoying. Maybe fast cars should be banned, its more danger to its driver, passanger and other car drivers.

If extended magazines are banned, then what to do if the next wacko brought and used 2 guns? ban ownership of 2 guns?

Sorry about getting on my soap box. I just had to get out my two cents.

Waco Kid wrote:I thought that one of the people who stopped the attack was a concealed license holder - but that he did not fire.

I could only imagine what would have happened if someone started firing back at the shooter... in a crowd. I think that would have been even worse. I'm almost *glad* nobody shot back at him - minimized collateral damage. I do wish it would have been stopped earlier though.

See the last argument on page 3 (the linked page) of this document: http://www.campuscarry.com/pdf/sccc_ans ... pdf#page=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;