Sheriff Joe Arpaio Wants Gun Owners To 'Take Down' Mass Shooters

a reply to: Christosterone

But the "average Joe" doesn't care about carrying a concealed (or especially an open-carried) pistol on their person.

My point is that it takes a person who is generally already well-trained in, at the very least, target shooting to take on the responsibility of everyday carry.

The premise of the OP's post and opinions like them are based on ignorance. Whether it is fostered by apathetic research, localized viewpoints, political leanings, or whatever, is inconsequential.

a reply to: Metallicus

What? Attacking my character is "defending America"?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Christosterone

But the "average Joe" doesn't care about carrying a concealed (or especially an open-carried) pistol on their person.

My point is that it takes a person who is generally already well-trained in, at the very least, target shooting to take on the responsibility of everyday carry.

The premise of the OP's post and opinions like them are based on ignorance. Whether it is fostered by apathetic research, localized viewpoints, political leanings, or whatever, is inconsequential.

And your premise is based off of anecdotes and wishful thinking. See I can do that too.

a reply to: buster2010

Oh come on you can do better than that, deflect a request for resources by pointing at mine?? If you cant make the connection between civilian friendly fire with military friendly fire, then I cant help you in the common sense department.

Absolutely a partnership as you say. Why not? If it could educate and save lives.

But I also am going to carry regardless if that is ever put into action or not as a responsibility to my family.

But I hope to God I never have to use it!



a reply to: VictoriaCromwell

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would certainly be happy to oblige your request for sources regarding the old fellas stopping robberies.

Youtube - Fox 45 Local Station - 90 yrs old

NBC Miami - 71 Years Old

Wesh Local News - 65 yrs old - Bank robbery

WLWT Local news - 92 years old! - home invasion

These may not have been mass shootings or attempted mass shootings, but I like to believe these guys wouldn't hesitate to respond to the call to arms in the event they were around when one happens.

If you do some looking, there are more stories like these. In many cases these people are heroes, even though they wouldn't claim to be, and never asked to be put in such a situation.

a reply to: VictoriaCromwell

I'm not trying to deny that there are responsible gun owners who CAN handle mass shooting situation appropriately. I mean that's AWESOME those old people are able to defend themselves at their age, but it's just that with the number of gun owners in America, the likelihood that people like that are outnumbered by the idiots is quite high.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not trying to demonize anything. It's not like I'm trying to ban guns or take your guns away.

That's not your or the mobs call to make using fear mongering to push draconianism.

Is that constitution just a GD piece of paper ?

Is it justice for the whole to held 'accountable' for the actions of the few?

A person commits a crime. Everyone else shouldn't have to pay for the consequences of that action.

Hell that is why the BILL of Rights was created.

They had enough of that crap under King George.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's hard to quantify, but it could be true that the fools outnumber those capable and willing.

However, I believe that starting from a young age, a healthy relationship with arms and defense must be fostered, people cannot be sheltered from the reality of this world. People ought to respect firearms yes, but you cannot create that respect after the guns have been banned.

I truly don't know the danger of that in your country, but my perspective is the English perspective, we lost our right to self defense a some time ago.

In fact, if a woman were to shoot a rapist with knife to her throat or a gun to her head in my nation, she would be charged with murder. Plain murder.

The best path to take with these problems is not the path Europe has taken. It is defeat.

I noticed your location is "Maryland", CCW is legal there, yes, but look at how few people do even though you have a slew of active duty military in the state. Roughly 47,000 out of five million. About 0.8% of the population, compared with roughly 6.2% for Indiana.

Lastly a note on "assault weapons", you being former military would know that most of the qualifications for being called an assault weapons are ridiculous, correct? Telescoping stocks, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, in all seriousness, how much more deadly is that going to make a firearm? Is it inherently more deadly that the bad guy has a less sore wrist after long periods of shooting?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
...the likelihood that people like that are outnumbered by the idiots is quite high.

I'm certainly not going to deny that a certain percentage are, but you seem to be rather strongly implying here that you believe that the majority of gun owners are irresponsible or untrustworthy. Am I understanding your position correctly?

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
...the likelihood that people like that are outnumbered by the idiots is quite high.

I'm certainly not going to deny that a certain percentage are, but you seem to be rather strongly implying here that you believe that the majority of gun owners are irresponsible or untrustworthy. Am I understanding your position correctly?

Oh no no. I'm not talking about gun owners in general here. By far a LARGE majority of gun owners would never even THINK about arming themselves while in public in case of a mass shooting. I'm talking about the Rambo wannabes where that is all they think about.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not trying to demonize anything. It's not like I'm trying to ban guns or take your guns away.

That's not your or the mobs call to make using fear mongering to push draconianism.

Is that constitution just a GD piece of paper ?

Is it justice for the whole to held 'accountable' for the actions of the few?

A person commits a crime. Everyone else shouldn't have to pay for the consequences of that action.

Hell that is why the BILL of Rights was created.

They had enough of that crap under King George.

Oh please, stop it with this regressionist attitude.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is ok. But it is only a valid one if you back it with stats and studies, with nothing anecdotal.

Stop pointing to the #ing constitution and prove why you're right, without resorting to 'oh, look at this!'.


The priority should be making the country the best it can be, no matter what. Whether that is supported by the constitution or not.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
This was just Joe seeking attention. Are you easily outraged by the comments of attention seekers? Do you really believe that his statement will have any significant influence on who does what?

If armed citizens were present at a mass shooting, what would you expect them to do? Some may be paralyzed with indecision or disbelief. Some may run. Some may stand their ground and fire back. Some may retreat and shoot back from cover. Some may hide and only shoot when confronted by the perp. No one can predict what one will do in the fog of war. Each situation is different. Confusion reigns. Adrenaline flows. Hands shake. Brains quake. Firearms fail. Shooters quail.
As has been said several times already, someone shooting back may cause the perpetrator to run for it or at least focus his or her attention on the defender, allowing others to escape. The perpetrator may even get clipped by a defender, saving the state prosecution costs while depriving the media of a circus. Yes, there is a chance that nearby innocents may be struck but the chances are probably greater that those same innocents would be shot by the killer.
Metal detectors in movie theaters would do nothing except find pocket change and nail clippers and incite the ire of a public that has been probed once too many times, already. After the theater went out of business because of annoying searches to sit for a movie, the public would be safer due to lack of another victim-filled venue.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fair enough. I was hoping you weren't about to go down that road.

I believe that most Americans are untrustworthy. This is an overall quite ignorant, belief driven country.


As soon as your priority isn't stats and studies when it comes to making things as good as they can be, then you're in trouble.


There's a reason this country is lucky if its a top 25 country in the world now, it's because of the regressive attitudes of the majority.

originally posted by: VictoriaCromwell
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's hard to quantify, but it could be true that the fools outnumber those capable and willing.

However, I believe that starting from a young age, a healthy relationship with arms and defense must be fostered, people cannot be sheltered from the reality of this world. People ought to respect firearms yes, but you cannot create that respect after the guns have been banned.

I wouldn't be opposed to this, but I'm not entirely sure the instruction of such a thing should be handled by parents. If we are going to train everyone how to properly handle and care for a gun, it should be in a public school classroom. Where instructional blocks can be standardized to make sure everyone receives the right level of education.

I truly don't know the danger of that in your country, but my perspective is the English perspective, we lost our right to self defense a some time ago.

How many mass shootings do you guys have to worry about each year?

In fact, if a woman were to shoot a rapist with knife to her throat or a gun to her head in my nation, she would be charged with murder. Plain murder.

Why couldn't she just use mace?

The best path to take with these problems is not the path Europe has taken. It is defeat.

I noticed your location is "Maryland", CCW is legal there, yes, but look at how few people do even though you have a slew of active duty military in the state. Roughly 47,000 out of five million. About 0.8% of the population, compared with roughly 6.2% for Indiana.

I think that has to do with the high restrictions placed on obtaining CCW permits, though I'm just guessing here. I haven't actually looked into it.

Lastly a note on "assault weapons", you being former military would know that most of the qualifications for being called an assault weapons are ridiculous, correct? Telescoping stocks, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, in all seriousness, how much more deadly is that going to make a firearm? Is it inherently more deadly that the bad guy has a less sore wrist after long periods of shooting?

Yea, I think those arguments about assault weapons are dumb. For one, most gun violence in this country is done with hand guns, and for two a gun is a gun. Whether it shoots one bullet or 1 million bullets, they all kill people.

a reply to: neo96

I find it humorous how you just quoted me saying I'm not trying to confiscate or ban guns then you start lecturing me on that very thing. Good job. You never disappoint me neo.

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: Krazysh0t
This was just Joe seeking attention. Are you easily outraged by the comments of attention seekers? Do you really believe that his statement will have any significant influence on who does what?

I think it's more that I just don't like him as a sheriff which got me so emotional initially.

If armed citizens were present at a mass shooting, what would you expect them to do? Some may be paralyzed with indecision or disbelief. Some may run. Some may stand their ground and fire back. Some may retreat and shoot back from cover. Some may hide and only shoot when confronted by the perp. No one can predict what one will do in the fog of war. Each situation is different. Confusion reigns. Adrenaline flows. Hands shake. Brains quake. Firearms fail. Shooters quail.
As has been said several times already, someone shooting back may cause the perpetrator to run for it or at least focus his or her attention on the defender, allowing others to escape. The perpetrator may even get clipped by a defender, saving the state prosecution costs while depriving the media of a circus. Yes, there is a chance that nearby innocents may be struck but the chances are probably greater that those same innocents would be shot by the killer.
Metal detectors in movie theaters would do nothing except find pocket change and nail clippers and incite the ire of a public that has been probed once too many times, already. After the theater went out of business because of annoying searches to sit for a movie, the public would be safer due to lack of another victim-filled venue.

And that's the problem we are gambling with fate by relying on an unknown person to shoot back. The situation could be cleared up rather easily, but just as easily it could spiral out of control into a much WORSE situation. You're playing with dynamite here. Wouldn't it make more sense to put our heads together and try to figure out a less risky way to defend people subjected to a mass shooting?

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fair enough. I was hoping you weren't about to go down that road.

I've already said in this thread at least once before that I'm pro-2nd. Not sure why no one wants to believe me there...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I wouldn't be opposed to this, but I'm not entirely sure the instruction of such a thing should be handled by parents. If we are going to train everyone how to properly handle and care for a gun, it should be in a public school classroom. Where instructional blocks can be standardized to make sure everyone receives the right level of education.

On that point, I agree with you completely. I've long since believed that we, as a society with widespread firearms ownership, should be devoting a certain amount of time on proper gun safety in the public school system with instruction from the local police departments. Even just devoting an hour or two a few times each school year would help.