Mass Shooting Shows Need For Guns In Airports, GOP Lawmaker Says - Polidicks

[quote]A Florida state Senate committee next week will take up legislation that would allow civilians to openly carry guns in airports, college campuses and other public places. State Sen. Greg Steube (R-Sarasota) said Friday’s mass shooting at Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport shows the importance of his bill, SB 140. It would allow Floridians with a concealed weapon permit to have guns with them in non-secure areas of schools, courthouses and airports. That would include airport baggage claim areas, where a lone gunman killed and wounded multiple people during Friday’s attack. [/quote] [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ft-lauderdale-guns-in-airports_us_586ff3dae4b043ad97e35ba4?bpsecqk9n7cbfyldi[/url]

No I don't think adding more guns will help things.

Extreme kneejerk reaction, much? I guess it should be expected at this point, but that's not going to magically fix everything.

I would get like, armed guards, but aren't people legally carrying concealed weapons a recipe for disaster in a mass shooting situation?

[QUOTE=Talishmar;51634381]I would get like, armed guards, but aren't people legally carrying concealed weapons a recipe for disaster in a mass shooting situation?[/QUOTE] Already have armed guards at airports from what I've seen

"Oh, more visibly armed security personnel to deter copy-cat atta-" [QUOTE]allow civilians to openly carry guns in airports, college campuses and other public places[/QUOTE] Nevermind, this is fucking stupid.

[QUOTE=Talishmar;51634381]I would get like, armed guards, but aren't people legally carrying concealed weapons a recipe for disaster in a mass shooting situation?[/QUOTE] This is a leftist anti-gun propaganda talking point that has somehow caught on and been very successful. Tell me. If somebody is going postal in your office, would you die happy knowing that "at least my co-workers won't shoot me by accident!"?

Whats a non-secure area at an airport, the check-in desk area and the baggage claim?

The problem I see is that armed civilians don't often look very different from mass shooters, which can be a huge problem for any first responders.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51634407]This is a leftist anti-gun propaganda talking point that has somehow caught on and been very successful. Tell me. If somebody is going postal in your office, would you die happy knowing that "at least my co-workers won't shoot me by accident!"?[/QUOTE] I've also never actually seen an example where someone with a legal concealed carry license cause more deaths than if they hadn't been there, but I most certainly have seen examples where someone with a concealed carry caused less deaths.

fight fire with fire

[QUOTE=Talishmar;51634381]I would get like, armed guards, but aren't people legally carrying concealed weapons a recipe for disaster in a mass shooting situation?[/QUOTE] I remember reading a case some people made on here that adding more guns to the situation would only complicate things for officers and others trying to get things under control. We saw in this shooting that communication of the details during a high-tension scenario is like a shooting is difficult and getting things like the number of active shooters wrong isnt uncommon in the least. The thing is, at first glance, a cop entering the scene and trying to neutralize the threat doesn't know if the "good guy with a gun" is on their side or not. That's why officers, SWAT, etc. are clearly marked and identified. A random citizen with a firearm in hand would look no different than the threat they'd be trying to neutralize. That goes for other potential victims as well. In a life or death scenario where a moments hesitation could result in you or other innocents being killed, having multiple people armed in a mass-shooting scenario is the definition of a recipe for disaster.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51634427]I've also never actually seen an example where someone with a legal concealed carry license cause more deaths than if they hadn't been there, but I most certainly have seen examples where someone with a concealed carry caused less deaths.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/264755/carjacking-gone-wrong-houston-texas/[/url]

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51634407]This is a leftist anti-gun propaganda talking point that has somehow caught on and been very successful. Tell me. If somebody is going postal in your office, would you die happy knowing that "at least my co-workers won't shoot me by accident!"?[/QUOTE] We're talking open carry. Airports already have armed guards. Now imagine some terrorist draws his weapon and starts shooting. Guards draw their weapons and try to identify the target. Civilians draw [I]their[/I] weapons and do the same. How in the world should anyone know who is the shooter if you suddenly have dozens of un-uniformed people drawing guns while looking for an un-uniformed gunman?

Maybe instead of arming a bunch of drugged up Floridians, we should be asking what this says about airport security's competence.

[QUOTE=Talishmar;51634381]I would get like, armed guards, but aren't people legally carrying concealed weapons a recipe for disaster in a mass shooting situation?[/QUOTE] The train of thought is it's already the worst disaster, it can't get worse than a lone gunman without any oposition indiscriminently firing on a crowd of people. And there's just as much evidence if not more so that having CCW's works out better than having none at all. Yeah two guns going off can be worse than one. But one of them is trying to stop the other, whereas not having a CCW there at all it's just the one with free reign I'd prefer having trained armed guards posted every block in the country and do away with CCWs but it's just not possible

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51634438]I remember reading a case some people made on here that adding more guns to the situation would only complicate things for officers and others trying to get things under control. We saw in this shooting that communication of the details during a high-tension scenario is like a shooting is difficult and getting things like the number of active shooters wrong isnt uncommon in the least. The thing is, at first glance, a cop entering the scene and trying to neutralize the threat doesn't know if the "good guy with a gun" is on their side or not. That's why officers, SWAT, etc. are clearly marked and identified. A random citizen with a firearm in hand would look no different than the threat they'd be trying to neutralize. That goes for other potential victims as well. In a life or death scenario where a moments hesitation could result in you or other innocents being killed, having multiple people armed in a mass-shooting scenario is the definition of a recipe for disaster.[/QUOTE] Let's not forget that if the shooter looks just like anybody else, the chances of confusing an innocent for the shooter go way up If all civilians are armed what stops having a single shooter from becoming a full firefight? You wouldn't know who the shooter is, so you just shoot anyone who shoots. It's a mess

[QUOTE=Riller;51634474]We're talking open carry. Airports already have armed guards. Now imagine some terrorist draws his weapon and starts shooting. Guards draw their weapons and try to identify the target. Civilians draw [I]their[/I] weapons and do the same. How in the world should anyone know who is the shooter if you suddenly have dozens of un-uniformed people drawing guns while looking for an un-uniformed gunman?[/QUOTE] [Media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0VOM7e5Hug[/media]

Funnily enough, that advertisement was banned from rotation.

When I think of a hundred random people carrying guns on their person at all times, I don't see a hundred potential heroes, I see a hundred potential fuckups.

[QUOTE=nox;51634448][url]http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/264755/carjacking-gone-wrong-houston-texas/[/url][/QUOTE] Do we know that he had a legal concealed carry permit? The article doesn't say.

[QUOTE=Reds;51634542]When I think of a hundred random people carrying guns on their person at all times, I don't see a hundred potential heroes, I see a hundred potential fuckups.[/QUOTE] Concealed carry seems to help shootings/robberies more often than it makes them worse. I can't really think of many stories where it made things worse, especially when stacked against the ones where it prevented them or ended them before they could get worse.] All that being said, wanting to use this to push a pro-gun agenda is just as gross as it is for dems to use them to try and take guns out of the hands of the people.

[QUOTE=Fort83;51634698]If everyone's pulling their guns how do you know who's the actual shooter and who is just "a good guy with a gun"? What if everyone in that Florida night club was carrying and all started going after the shooter, or who they thought was the shooter? Throwing more guns into the mix is a stupid idea.[/QUOTE] This theoretical example comes up a lot, but it doesn't seem to happen in the real world.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51634562]Do we know that he had a legal concealed carry permit? The article doesn't say.[/QUOTE] He also broke one of the golden rules: [I]Beware of your target, and what's behind it.[/I] He should not have shot knowing there was a civilian in close proximity, his bad shot made him a killer.

[QUOTE=Riller;51634474]We're talking open carry. Airports already have armed guards. Now imagine some terrorist draws his weapon and starts shooting. Guards draw their weapons and try to identify the target. Civilians draw [I]their[/I] weapons and do the same. How in the world should anyone know who is the shooter if you suddenly have dozens of un-uniformed people drawing guns while looking for an un-uniformed gunman?[/QUOTE] You can tell who the bad guy is because he's shooting indiscriminately into a crowd of people. "domino effect" doesn't happen.

[QUOTE=Fort83;51634730]If everyone in that night club was carrying it would've happened, everyone having concealed weapons and pulling them when things happen isn't going to help the situation.[/QUOTE] I doubt the shooter would have been alive when the police arrived if everyone in the club had a gun. You can't just change a massive variable and assume everything else goes the same.

[QUOTE=Reds;51634542]When I think of a hundred random people carrying guns on their person at all times, I don't see a hundred potential heroes, I see a hundred potential fuckups.[/QUOTE] Because people legally carrying concealed weapons has been such a huge issue up until now, not the people stealing firearms from irresponsible gun owners who fail to properly secure them in their homes or the countless crimes committed with said illegal firearms. Not the straw purchasers that buy guns for felons. Not the fact that guns are and always will be easy to get a hold of, even legally thanks to sales laws that need to be tightened up. Not the ridiculous open carry laws. Nah, it's the people that go through the ropes and actually know what they're doing and how to be responsible that are the problem here.

[QUOTE=Fort83;51634730]If everyone in that night club was carrying it would've happened, everyone having concealed weapons and pulling them when things happen isn't going to help the situation.[/QUOTE] Except it kinda does because right after the shooting at the Pulse night club, [URL="http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/167835627-story"]a concealed carrier in SC shot a man who came into a bar and opened fire.[/URL] But naw, lets come up with fairy tale scenarios that don't exist in the real world to dissuade people from concealed carrying.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51634719]This theoretical example comes up a lot, but it doesn't seem to happen in the real world.[/QUOTE] because luckily, the real world isn't run entirely by people like this GOP lawmaker

[QUOTE=LSK;51634744]Nah, it's the people that go through the ropes and actually know what they're doing and how to be responsible that are the problem here.[/QUOTE] Having a license does not necessarily mean you know what you are doing. Loads of idiots have licenses for loads of things, I really doubt gun-carrying is magically different from driving or hunting or whatever else license-holding activity you can think of. [editline]7th January 2017[/editline] And again, this is about [I]open carry[/I], not concealed carry. Concealed is more well-reasoned, but has its flaws.