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

[QUOTE=Riller;51634766]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.[/QUOTE] No, it's about concealed carry.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51634799]No, it's about concealed carry.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]A Florida state Senate committee next week will take up legislation that would [B]allow civilians to openly carry guns [/B]in airports, college campuses and other public places. [/QUOTE] No, it's about open carry.

[QUOTE=Riller;51634805]No, it's about open carry.[/QUOTE] I think it means "openly carry" as in not have to lie about carrying. The rest of the article specifies that they're talking about concealed carry permits.

From the [URL="https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/0140/BillText/Filed/HTML"]text [/URL]it seems like it's a bill that allows people with CCL's to open carry handguns, which you cannot do in Florida right now. It also changes the existing rules disallowing carrying it into schools, courthouses, etc.

Open carry on campuses and public spaces makes sense, but an airport? That I cannot agree with.

[QUOTE=Kecske;51634411]Whats a non-secure area at an airport, the check-in desk area and the baggage claim?[/QUOTE] yes. basically anything that isn't beyond a TSA checkpoint is the non secure side

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51634856]From the [URL="https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/0140/BillText/Filed/HTML"]text [/URL]it seems like it's a bill that allows people with CCL's to open carry handguns, which you cannot do in Florida right now. It also changes the existing rules disallowing carrying it into schools, courthouses, etc.[/QUOTE] Thanks for posting that. It looks like you're correct. [editline]6th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Zombinie;51634871]Open carry on campuses and public spaces makes sense, but an airport? That I cannot agree with.[/QUOTE] It's only in the parts before going through a security checkpoint, basically anywhere where someone could have a gun anyway.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;51634871]Open carry on campuses and public spaces makes sense, but an airport? That I cannot agree with.[/QUOTE] Why is an airport such an exclusive entity?

-snip, didn't think through-

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51634935]Why is an airport such an exclusive entity?[/QUOTE] It's hard to say why it feels wrong, but I think it has to do with the saturation of guards and security already there.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51634935]Why is an airport such an exclusive entity?[/QUOTE] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks"]idk[/URL]

[QUOTE=Kecske;51634950]Increased of risk a weapon getting inside the secure zone/plane?[/QUOTE] How is the risk increased if people are doing it legally? You can already bring a gun into the non-secure area of an airport. How do you think people check firearms into their luggage? You think a sign on the door is going to stop someone from trying to sneak it past the TSA? [editline]7th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=MissZoey;51634958][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks"]idk[/URL][/QUOTE] thats nice and all, but none of the terrorists used firearms, but ok. "hurdurr 9/11" isn't a catchall to justify security.

[QUOTE=MissZoey;51634958][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks"]idk[/URL][/QUOTE] Also, this law doesn't let you take a gun anywhere you already couldn't take a gun if you wanted to without issue. This just makes it legal. I can't imagine a scenario where this would effect someone who wanted to shoot people.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51634962] thats nice and all, but none of the terrorists used firearms, but ok. "hurdurr 9/11" isn't a catchall to justify security.[/QUOTE] I was using it to point out why airports should have higher security than a campus or any other regular public space. I'm not saying "GUNS DID THIS BAN ALL GUNS". Also, I feel like 9/11 is definitely a way to justify security when you're talking about [I]airport [/I]security. I mean, yeah, don't use it to justify spying and security elsewhere. [editline]7th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;51634985]Also, this law doesn't let you take a gun anywhere you already couldn't take a gun if you wanted to without issue. This just makes it legal. I can't imagine a scenario where this would effect someone who wanted to shoot people.[/QUOTE] Imagine guns are illegal. You get seen with a gun on the way into an airport, you're promptly reported before you can get deep inside near a lot of people. When people can openly carry, it means people can blend in and not raise suspicion while they get near to a bunch of people. I'm not saying this [B]WILL[/B] happen, I'm saying it's a potential issue. I may have misread your point though, not sure...

so should everyone start wearing bulletproof vests?!?!

[QUOTE=MissZoey;51635086]Imagine guns are illegal. You get seen with a gun on the way into an airport, you're promptly reported before you can get deep inside near a lot of people. When people can openly carry, it means people can blend in and not raise suspicion while they get near to a bunch of people. I'm not saying this [B]WILL[/B] happen, I'm saying it's a potential issue. I may have misread your point though, not sure...[/QUOTE] I mean... just put the gun under a coat, and, voila you've successfully gotten your gun into an airport illegally. Coming up with extremely unnecessary theoretical examples doesn't really get us anywhere. You can make something up in order to ban almost anything.

[QUOTE=MissZoey;51635086]I was using it to point out why airports should have higher security than a campus or any other regular public space. I'm not saying "GUNS DID THIS BAN ALL GUNS". Also, I feel like 9/11 is definitely a way to justify security when you're talking about [I]airport [/I]security. I mean, yeah, don't use it to justify spying and security elsewhere. [/quote] Again, the crime wasn't committed with guns so if further anti-gun security existed on 9/11, it wouldn't have done shit. Furthermore, the idea in question calls for open carry to be allowed in the [i][b]non-secure[/i][/b] area of the airport. You know, the area before TSA security checkpoints and 2 miles away from any boarding gate. No where is anyone advocating firearms on an aircraft. [QUOTE=MissZoey;51635086] Imagine guns are illegal. You get seen with a gun on the way into an airport, you're promptly reported before you can get deep inside near a lot of people. When people can openly carry, it means people can blend in and not raise suspicion while they get near to a bunch of people. I'm not saying this [B]WILL[/B] happen, I'm saying it's a potential issue. I may have misread your point though, not sure...[/QUOTE] I'm not really an advocate of open carry, but banning guns wouldn't suddenly make someone with a gun easier to deal with. If guns were illegal and this sort of thing happened again, then the chances of someone being able to deal with the attacker before police or security can arrive is extremely minimal. I hate to say it, but people don't act like they should when a mass-shooter scenario occurs and who can blame them, en mass charge an armed attacker? Fuck that. It's unimaginably scary to be shot at. But if a person is in the crowd who has a firearm and is properly trained to safely and effectively use it, whats the issue? I'll go ahead and state my stance on open carry to save time down the line. I don't really advocate it at all except in certain circumstances. All open carry does is make you a target. It doesn't effectively deter attacks, it just makes you the first target from one. Theres been a few cases where people who were open carrying had their firearms stolen from them at gunpoint because their attacker knew they had them because that person chose to make it readily apparent that they had it. It's tactically dumb to do shit like that. Furthermore, whether I or anyone else likes it or not, some people don't like guns and are downright scared of them. It's not fair for me or any other gun owner to impose that fear onto another person when I could be even more effective as a gun carrier by concealing my firearm. I think open carry should exist, but people shouldn't use it unless they need to. Gun shows, taking your firearm home, open carrying in your business or on your property, ect. Theres really no justification to OC in an airport or at an applebees.

[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] Prove it, because I have yet to hear of any mass shootings where CCW users shoot each other due to mistaken identity of the real shooter. This just NEVER happens. Conversely, there have been known incidents where someone tries to start a mass shooting inside a shooting range (lol what a horrible idea) where [I]everyone[/I] had guns, and people (most likely the range officers) were able to stop the bad guy without starting a free for all gunfight. That and the shooting in the mall which was stopped by a CCW holder, etc... Also in the majority of places they don't just hand those permits out to fucking anyone. Getting back on topic, I don't think consealed carry for airports is a good idea. They already have a ludicrous amount of security and it would only bog down their system even more.

[QUOTE=Kecske;51634411]Whats a non-secure area at an airport, the check-in desk area and the baggage claim?[/QUOTE] pretty much and even then theres guards and police there, this only was as bad as it was because the guy got shots off into a crowd before being taken down also this is pretty much what people have been warning about with expanding cases of where you can carry a gun. he waited until he had the magazine from his bag then opened fire.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;51635149]Prove it, because I have yet to hear of any mass shootings where CCW users shoot each other due to mistaken identity of the real shooter. This just NEVER happens. Conversely, there have been known incidents where someone tries to start a mass shooting inside a shooting range (lol what a horrible idea) where [I]everyone[/I] had guns, and people (most likely the range officers) were able to stop the bad guy without starting a free for all gunfight. That and the shooting in the mall which was stopped by a CCW holder, etc... Also in the majority of places they don't just hand those permits out to fucking anyone. [b]Getting back on topic, I don't think consealed carry for airports is a good idea. They already have a ludicrous amount of security and it would only bog down their system even more.[/b][/QUOTE] How is people CC'ing in a non-secured area of an airport bogging down airport security at all?

[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] [QUOTE=SebiWarrior;51634486]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] Number of times armchair theorists have proclaimed that having multiple concealed carriers involved in a shooting would lead to confusion, turn it into a wild shootout, and only make things worse: 1,382,784 Number of times it has actually happened in actual shootings involving multiple actual concealed carriers: 0 Florida publishes stats on concealed carriers, and if you care to look up the stats yourself you'll find that licensed concealed carriers commit both firearm-related offenses and crimes in general around six times less than [I]police officers[/I]. There is no legitimate reason to think that allowing concealed carriers to do the same thing they do everywhere else would be a problem, only rampant speculation not borne out by reality in the slightest. Florida already has enormous numbers of concealed carriers and these scenarios of police mistaking law-abiding citizens for criminals or multiple concealed carriers causing a wild shootout just don't happen. Intuitively I would assume they would, but they don't. That's just the fact of it. [QUOTE=MissZoey;51635086]Imagine guns are illegal. You get seen with a gun on the way into an airport, you're promptly reported before you can get deep inside near a lot of people. When people can openly carry, it means people can blend in and not raise suspicion while they get near to a bunch of people. I'm not saying this [B]WILL[/B] happen, I'm saying it's a potential issue.[/QUOTE] 1. It's trivially easy to conceal a firearm if you don't want to get spotted. 2. When's the last time a mass shooter targeted a place that allowed concealed carry? If your logic were valid, then places where a shooter could 'blend in' would be targets of choice. But history shows that with a number of exceptions you could count on one hand, mass shooters choose venues like schools, military bases, and gun-free businesses where only a limited number of police officers will be armed and able to respond to the threat. Following past trends, if anything allowing CC will make airports a less attractive target.

[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] It can possibly seen as a deterrent. If someone is going on a shooting rampage, I would think they would prefer a place like a 'gun free zone' and avoid a place where they know will have other people carrying guns. I don't believe "Mass Shooting Shows Need For Guns In Airports", but If someone has the legal right to open carry, why have zones where you can't carry them? because it makes people [i]feel[/i] safe? It obviously didn't prevent the gunman from bringing his gun in there.

This is a dumb law. We dont need more guns in airports. Federal law already requires a shit ton of cops in airports. [quote]Law enforcement officials have said in the past that bystanders’ firearms can make active shooting situations more confusing, making it harder to pick out the suspect. [/quote] [URL="http://pullzonebsd-4705.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KCPD-Badge-Placement-Study.pdf"]This is actually a bigger problem than what people think.[/URL] You dont need to carry your weapon into any airport building. If you dont feel safe leaving it in your vehicle then dont bring it along. If you dont feel safe being unarmed at an airport than you are paranoid and shouldnt have a gun to begin with.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51634822]I think it means "openly carry" as in not have to lie about carrying. The rest of the article specifies that they're talking about concealed carry permits.[/QUOTE] Just admit that you didn't read the article like holy smokes man this is so obvious

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51634407]This is a leftist anti-gun propaganda talking point that has somehow caught on and been very successful.[/QUOTE] how is this even leftist anti-gun propaganda? how are armed guards in an airport going to pick out who is the mass shooter from a crowd of un-uniformed people who are waving guns about?

It's a valid point to say that there would be confusion added if more people had and used their gun during a mass shooting event such as this. But I think we're conveniently overlooking the fact that there is one big differentiating detail between armed suspect and CCW civilian, and that is the civilian will stop shooting once the threat is [I]hopefully[/I] neutralized. At that point, what should happen is they disarm themselves and if faced with other civilians or law enforcement go in to compliance. Obviously there should be certain rules in place like only engage if you're in immediate danger. Don't go running looking for the shooter. That sort of thing. If I were placed in that situation and had a CCW and were in immediate danger AND could get the jump on the gunman, I would absolutely take the shot. It's not a cut and dry scenario admittedly. If you're untrained there's a good chance you couldn't reliably perform in this life and death situation. Which brings up the education, training, etc, etc, etc, arguments which I'm all for education and training anyway. Personally I think it's a little too easy to just own a firearm. I just bought my first one and the silly test they make you take was cake. That'll end my little rant. This ended up longer than I thought.

Even the UK has heavily armed police at inbound immigration control

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51635546]how is this even leftist anti-gun propaganda? how are armed guards in an airport going to pick out who is the mass shooter from a crowd of un-uniformed people who are waving guns about?[/QUOTE] I'd suggest certain insignia to quickly identify the good guys, but you know the badguys will just copy those insignia so I guess we'll just live in fear.

Ah yes, adding multiple people with guns is sure to not cause more of a panic / confusion

Somehow you guys think that if everyone was allowed to carry a gun they would, and even if everyone in the airport was armed I bet less than 20% would actually draw their weapon in that situation. And out of those 20% I think less than half would actually be prepared to shoot and kill someone even if their own life was threatened. I'm okay with people carrying guns but there needs to be more strict rules and training to be able to get one. Some of you make it sound like the whole place instantly turns into war zone after 1 shot is fired and 200 civilians pull out their guns at the same time and start shooting each other.