Guns welcome: Packing heat at Starbucks for all the world to see

Exactly. I'm thankful for people like you. It's good to see some reasonable gun people on this site to balance out the gun control crowd.

Yes, she did, but unfortunately she wasn't the first person there. I'm saying the people on the base should be permitted to carry weapons, and it's crazy that they aren't. Gun-free zones are a crazy idea. 13 people shouldn't have to die on a military base before someone else with a gun can get to the situation. We also have to remember that cops are human beings, not supermen. Any individual with the right training can be a cop. That means that it takes an officer time to respond to a scene. Wouldn't it have been better if after the man's gun was noticed someone else in the room could have shot him before he was able to kill that many people? People may have gotten wounded, but there wouldn't have been as many dead. The officer should be honored as a hero for responding as quickly as possible, but it is not to say that her job could not have been made a little easier that day if one of the VETERANS PRESENT had been able to carry a concealed weapon.

Also, if you notice, I stated "If only another brave individual had been carrying a firearm at Fort Hood that day, the tragedy could have been greatly reduced." Did you not read the post? She was one brave person (110 pound lady putting down a person like that is very heroic), but that was not the issue being discussed. The issue is that concealed firearms carried on the base by military personnel and veterans could have eliminated some of the carnage. If that's wrong, then I don't know what's right.

I understand your point. You ever heard of shoulda.coulda,woulda,. Here is a scenario for ya: Let's say that instead of a gun free zone everybody had a loaded weapon in that room, you know, just in case as you said. Who would have fired first, would they all? how would you make the split second decision as to who to shoot first. Or would it be fine that everyone shoot and see where hundreds bullets make there way. A liberal gun policy sounds good of course. You can't argue with giving people freedom of right? Do you ever think what what would really happen if all of us walked around armed? That's ALOT of walking guns. For the record I believe that any responsible and sane person should have the right to own a gun of course.

First of all, I and most other gun owners go to the range more often than police officers are able to. Most people who have concealed carry weapons have been trained to respond to situations like this. Talk about not honoring your veterans. These are not even normal citizens. They are people who have gone to war and returned. How do you make a split second decision? Someone pulls a gun on you and you return fire. If everyone had a gun, the guy would have simply been filled with more bullets. I don't really understand your random ranting. Stick to one point if you want a fighting chance with this argument. Remember, in Switzerland, every single person has a gun. Go look up how many 'incidents' they have there. So you expect people to own guns but not carry them? So I can only be safe at my house if I have a gun? What is 'freedom of right'? Please try to make a good cohesive argument next time.

I am simply thinking through your scenario. The real random rambling here is your throwing a scenario that's sounds good at its face but not thinking it through.You admit he would be filled with more bullets. No one else? Do you think Innocents caught in crossfire is not a myth? One obvious reason we have law enforcement and military is so we can know immediately who needs to take cover and who needs to be a front lines with the gun. Somebody needs to be the trusted gun carrier and trained operator of said gun.

You can't assume that just because a person is carrying a gun you trust them, or that they "go to the shooting range more than cops". The shoulda coulda whoulda is a straw mans argument. Sometimes, psycho people go off the handle like he did and we can't lose our shit as a peaceful society just because people have mental health issues.

What you speak of going back to the days of the wild west where people carry guns like trophies.

BTW I have been sticking to the same point the entire time. In a civil society, this cop saved all of the lives just fine. I am perfectly comfortable with the level of security on base. There is no way of knowing that a soldier would do this to his fellow soldiers, and it is not a reason or case to change laws around because one sad pitiful douche bag murderer committed a random act of violence.

You have a point. If you are right we should require what you say and be sure that every gun owner meets these types of standards for gun ownership, unfortunately, that is precisely what gun right activists are against. Any laws dictating the ownership of guns no matter how common sense and realistic is a so called "assault on 2nd amendment rights"

Of course in a ideal world everyone who owns a gun should be trained, licensed and sane. On top of that own a puppy, swim in gold, and poop sunshine. I would also venture to say that as a pluralistic democracy we do have the luxury of being both a peaceful and violent country. Just depends on which you support, I am gonna take my chances with peace and stick to shooting on the range for fun and leaving the weapons at home. That said it is nice to debate someone on gun rights who has respect for a good debate.

Guns just are not "lefty" popular,...what happened to the,.hmmmmm,.."militant" left club??? Everybody but me take up yoga, tofu, and new age music? GAH!

It's a states vs feds issue, really.

Man that makes me want to move to Sweden. I like a woman that can shoot a gun better than me.

Are you being sarcastic?

What's wrong with Glocks? :) Your Springfeild is purrty!! I must admit ;)

It's really just a gun that's easy to maintain (from what I've heard). Also, just have to get this out, if you do go with an M1911, you have to go with the wood grip.

springfield is the way to go!!!! i have a xd.45 & i love it!!!!

Hi Glock Girl! There is nothing wrong with glocks! They are great, reliable weapons! Our buddy owns one and he ran over it with a forklift, sent it back to Glock, they looked at it and sent it back because it was totally fine.

Thanks for the compliment! We love our longslide！　：）

The XD is incredible! I was just looking at the XD .40 and 9mm and the .45 is just fantastic. Great choice!

MizPiz, that's why I picked that 1911. Loved the cocobola carved wood grip. And the long slide makes it look extra nice.

Maybe taizers aren't deadly, but tazers are.

AMEN!!!

As long as it's not an automatic nuclear weapon.

The first amendment supports your right to say stupid things

That's awfully high and mighty of you. What's the matter, have you just never handled one? It's OK to be scared of them, but you shouldn't be so judgmental of something you don't understand.

In a situation where a person of malevolent intent pulls a weapon and starts shooting innocent people, I'll count on you to be the first to duck in cowardice and run away for fear of your own life. By your comment, I have to infer that you care more about preserving your own life than preserving the innocent lives of those around you. What a shame.

small penis...

"I have to infer that you care more about preserving your own life than preserving the innocent lives of those around you"

I'm a firefighter/EMT. I'm willing to bet that I have saved or assisted dozens, nay, hundreds more people than you have. I'm sorry you hate firearms, but I don't. Don't judge me upon it, and I won't judge you.

Ares, that comment was directed at locutus for the 'mental deficit' remark. Thank you for being so brave at your job and saving lives daily. I certainly don't hate firearms. My fiance and I both hold concealed carry permits for the state of Florida, and we collect firearms.

Giving everyone access to weapons means including the " idiots " you list as the reason a weapon gets used . If I understand an idiot's mentality ( peace through superior firepower) then I miss the point . I am pretty sure idiots that are scared shitless with a weapon wouldn't make people civil , those are the people that shoot first and get questioned later . I also think when it comes to being armed and keeping peace France wouldn't have much to say on the subject . I can see your point , let everyone buy any weapon they want then let them fight over parking spots and see who blinks . I also think you left out India and Pakistan as well as some other very probable Nuke packing people other than N Korea and Iran. I am not sure , maybe you are right more bombs = more peace, artillery equals civility , it worked with Japan ( oops that wasn't civil) sorry Japan . I liked my slogans more than your point but I am a sucker for a good T-shirt slogan .

notyourbabiesdaddy, I was being sarcastic ... and yes you guys saved our ass - twice. For how long do the French have to put up with those tired jokes ... they'll run out soon as our veterans are pushing 80.

I know you were being ironic but sarcasm doesn't read the same as it sounds , thats why I added neat slogans for T-shirts and bumper stickers . Do the slogan work in french or are they less catchy ?

Pretty soon China will own the U.S. anyway.

France isn't big on slogans or T-shirts ... I must admit that I thought your slogan (which I do like) came across as an actual point of view. That's probably because I've just finished a discussion with 'libertyforall' who might actually see this article as positive progress.

America has got an international reputation when it comes to gun ownership unfortunately.

does the second amendment support me bringing my nuke into starbucks?

Ok hold on a sec, LANDMINES are not like firearms and nukes! They kill all on there own, without anyone pulling a trigger, sometimes even decades later. They represent a level of careless danger far beyond firearms.

You're partly right Tao_D landmines cause terror way beyond their intended use and on generations that have nothing to do with the original conflict ... but when I say 'pull the trigger' I mean to take the decision to kill. But again landmines are used in war so this is different.

BTW (a side issue to this topic but interesting) in the Burmese civil war between the Karen hill tribes and the military (which has been going for 60 years), the "State Law & Order Restoration Council", run by the military, will seek financial compensation from Karen villages if someone steps on a landmine because they are destroying government property. ref: http://www.karenhumanrightsgroup.org/khrg96/landmine96.html