Near Massacre at the Superbowl
- Thread starter vt357
- Start date
- Status
As terrible as this situation was, possible "public safety" should not be used as justification to infringe on RKBA including purchases.
For every rare nut case that might be prevented or more likely delayed by a waiting period, how many more lives can be preserved by immediate access to a means of self defense? At any moment in time ther are many more people face an immediate threat from abusive partners, neighbors and local hoods than are apt to go on a killing spree.
And of course fundamentally do we really want total protection from all threats at the cost of our liberties? I think every security person recognizes that it is almost impossible to eliminate risk from terrorist willing to sacrifice himself in a suicide attack. We can reduce the chances, and try to minimize the duration of an attack. But if someone is willing to die trying then it is pretty difficult to eliminate all danger from them.
If there were multiple CCW attendees at the stadium, then someone may have popped him from behind as soon as they saw him raising the rifle and looking for targets. Or maybe the nutcase would have killed few individuals first before being taken down. Certainly going one on one with a pistl against a rifle is a bad situation. But several pistols from different angles increases the odds.
All we know for sure is that a compact mass of totally unarmed individuals going against a terrorist with a rifle is likely to end with dozens injured and killed.
For every rare nut case that might be prevented or more likely delayed by a waiting period, how many more lives can be preserved by immediate access to a means of self defense? At any moment in time ther are many more people face an immediate threat from abusive partners, neighbors and local hoods than are apt to go on a killing spree.
And of course fundamentally do we really want total protection from all threats at the cost of our liberties? I think every security person recognizes that it is almost impossible to eliminate risk from terrorist willing to sacrifice himself in a suicide attack. We can reduce the chances, and try to minimize the duration of an attack. But if someone is willing to die trying then it is pretty difficult to eliminate all danger from them.
If there were multiple CCW attendees at the stadium, then someone may have popped him from behind as soon as they saw him raising the rifle and looking for targets. Or maybe the nutcase would have killed few individuals first before being taken down. Certainly going one on one with a pistl against a rifle is a bad situation. But several pistols from different angles increases the odds.
All we know for sure is that a compact mass of totally unarmed individuals going against a terrorist with a rifle is likely to end with dozens injured and killed.
yhtomit
Member
I don't think that matters. Like the linked story says, there was lots of activity outside the stadium -- plenty of people were there having fun, and I bet not all of them were to exercise their tactical awareness
That the statidum itself was well guarded is a bit like the increased attention to airplane security lately; there are still plenty of vulnerabilities at *airports* for a terrorist who doesn't mind getting gunned down in the process of attacking them. (Ever been in a long, doubled-and-redoubled rope corridor full of people loaded with baggage outside the pretend-security check?)
So as long as he wasn't intent on getting a view of the field, if he hadn't changed his mind it seems likely he could have shot quite a few people in the crowd near the stadium.
(Caveat: I don't know the layout, so maybe I'm wrongly picturing the scene. I understand there was a football game, and that the Giants won ...)
timothy
Titan6
member
HunH? He already had the gun and was at the scene. That makes for a case of not having the cooling off period.
General Geoff
Member
Glad that his sense of reason prevailed, and he didn't end up shooting a bunch of folks.
I understand his contempt for bureaucracy, but gunning down a bunch of innocents with an AR wouldn't have really helped his situation. I think the most brilliant violent retaliatory action of this type that's taken place in United States history thus far was the gentleman in the so-called Killdozer. He managed to not kill (or even physically harm) a single person, while demolishing many of his enemies' domiciles. Not that I'm condoning or even accepting his actions, but I think his way of dealing with it was far more conducive to a political message than gunning down people in cold blood.
I understand his contempt for bureaucracy, but gunning down a bunch of innocents with an AR wouldn't have really helped his situation. I think the most brilliant violent retaliatory action of this type that's taken place in United States history thus far was the gentleman in the so-called Killdozer. He managed to not kill (or even physically harm) a single person, while demolishing many of his enemies' domiciles. Not that I'm condoning or even accepting his actions, but I think his way of dealing with it was far more conducive to a political message than gunning down people in cold blood.
RoadkingLarry
Member
Maybe its my "inner paranoid nutjob" but when I see this kind of stuff I have to ask my self if it wasn't a BS setup to promote gun control. These kinds of stories seem to have a way of fading away and disappearing but it leaves the message and the fear in the minds of a lot of people.
This wasn't about business. It was about what he felt was an arbitrary government decision that left him powerless to even start a business.
His reaction was inexcusable, but he wouldn't be the first person to commit violence because of a bureaucratic system that left him feeling powerless.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Huh? Please explain.
I agree with Zoogster and Run&Shoot.
He planned an crime and took a substantive step toward carrying it out. That is "attempted [whatever the crime]" in most states. The letters were a terroristic threat, though it appears he abandoned the plan and turned himself in before they were received. I'm sure there's a crime in there. being charged will get him "into the system" to get him help and make it harder to do again.
If you haven't already, you have to go and check out the comments at the article site. Everyone is railing on the city council and pushing property rights for the guys business and the only person to call for more gun control got shut down real quick. God bless Arizona!
silverlance
Member
Instead of Gun Control, Equal access to good defensive firearms. It's all for the greater good!
Well, we should be thankful that the evil assault rifle wasn't able to overwhelm this poor man's sense of conscience. That's really the only thing that stopped him - his triumph of will over the unholy influence of such a horrid weapon that was urging him to commit mass murder.
Or so the anti-gunners argue.
In the minds of those who would use this near miss as any kind of example of why waiting periods (or bans, or terms like "assault rifle" applied to rifles not meant for assault) will stop people, they want you to believe that the hardware is the catalyst. In this instance, clearly, it was not the hardware. He was denied in October, and had been stewing over it (in some way) since then. Folks, the Super Bowl is in February. After a quick calculation you can see that he waited a full three months, and possibly a bit more, before he set his plan in motion by purchasing a gun to carry out the murder.
And you know what, sometimes that's going to happen. Laws or not. Folks have snapped before, and they'll do so again. When and who is impossible to say in a free society, and for all the heartache that follows a case where violence is visited on the innocent, I'd rather live in that kind of society than one where we're all vetted from day one, watched, prodded and shackled until we die.
Or so the anti-gunners argue.
In the minds of those who would use this near miss as any kind of example of why waiting periods (or bans, or terms like "assault rifle" applied to rifles not meant for assault) will stop people, they want you to believe that the hardware is the catalyst. In this instance, clearly, it was not the hardware. He was denied in October, and had been stewing over it (in some way) since then. Folks, the Super Bowl is in February. After a quick calculation you can see that he waited a full three months, and possibly a bit more, before he set his plan in motion by purchasing a gun to carry out the murder.
And you know what, sometimes that's going to happen. Laws or not. Folks have snapped before, and they'll do so again. When and who is impossible to say in a free society, and for all the heartache that follows a case where violence is visited on the innocent, I'd rather live in that kind of society than one where we're all vetted from day one, watched, prodded and shackled until we die.
Kind of Blued
Member
I did in my original post. Reread it.
Law-abiding citizen buys gun because he, due to a clean record, can be trusted to act ethically, and while he got darn close, still chose to do the ethical thing by not shooting innocent people.
Criminals tend to have a less pressing conscience. That was the point of my original post.
I'm not saying he didn't do anything wrong, or shouldn't be locked up, or at leats some HEAVY DUTY anger management. I'm just saying that more gun control wouldn't have made this situation any better.
yhtomit
Member
Was anyone else involved? I don't get that impression from the short article linked, but I'll admit I haven't read any others. If not, I don't see how it could be a conspiracy -- that takes more than one person. An attempt charge, though, I think could be sustained, because he made a substantial step toward carrying out his plan to murder people.
There could be charges because of the threatening letters, criminal and civil.
Maybe it'll get bargained down to terroristic threats ... I don't know enough for my personal ignorance to mean very much, but I've never *heard* of a case where someone who planned to murder others, then simply thought better of it and simply withdrew before even starting to shoot / strangle / etc., was charged with attempted murder. Plenty of lawyers (and plenty of Arizonans) read this site -- what think ye of likely charges and outcomes?
timothy
Big45
member
what a buffoon
Well-Armed Lamb
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2006
- Messages
- 69
ArmedBear, you got that one right. I can't imagine what Matt Bracken's reaction to the story was -- I think I'd have felt boggled and slightly alarmed in his place; it's not often that one sees elements from one's novel come to life in the newspapers. Bracken's fictional treatment has something similar as a frame-up situation, but in real life there are unfortunately more disturbed folks than you'd expect. And, of course, the real-life ending is *much* happier than the scenario in the novel.
The would-be perpetrator may not be schizophrenic, but he dang sure comes across as severely emotionally disturbed. The fact that he realized that he was about to do something monstrous, and found the moral sense to prevent himself from acting, offers some small amount of hope for him, and for his treatment. Be interesting to see how the authorities handle this one.
(One interesting piece in the article: the Super Bowl was his second choice of target. Originally, he was planning to hit Desert Ridge Marketplace, which from its website looks like an upscale pedestrian mall development.)
langenc
Member
"Good thing this guy had second thoughts ....no one needs having their sporting event marred by such a horrible event, and we don't need any more fodder for the Brady-boobs."
Above from post #3-that is all the more reason to have guns at such an event.
Above from post #3-that is all the more reason to have guns at such an event.
Travis McGee
Member
I'm out of state in MD, so I haven't been checking the computer much. This story sure did get my attention. One thing that is very different from the start of my novel EFAD is that this stadium presented no chance for firing down into the stands from a distance. It's practically 100% enclosed from all 360* around it.
But as has been pointed out, the tens of thousands of fans milling around just before game time also would have been a giant target, and probably would have caused the Superbowl to be cancelled or delayed by a week or more. Imagine the financial hit, aside from the casualties.
Folks, we have to accept that in a nation of 300 million, there are thousands of deeply disturbed folks who present a danger to society. Thank goodness that this guy turned away from doing the terrible deed. I'm sorry for his family, their lives are probably ruined. I hope this guy gets help. Some "good angel" within him must have appealed to his better nature, thank God.
But as has been pointed out, the tens of thousands of fans milling around just before game time also would have been a giant target, and probably would have caused the Superbowl to be cancelled or delayed by a week or more. Imagine the financial hit, aside from the casualties.
Folks, we have to accept that in a nation of 300 million, there are thousands of deeply disturbed folks who present a danger to society. Thank goodness that this guy turned away from doing the terrible deed. I'm sorry for his family, their lives are probably ruined. I hope this guy gets help. Some "good angel" within him must have appealed to his better nature, thank God.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
In a technical sense...yes they do. It amounts to communicating a threat, even though the details were pretty non-specific. Thinking about killing somebody? If that were a punishable crime, half of us would be singin' our own rendition of "Jailhouse Rock."
outerlimit
Member
Unfortunately there are many selfish and incredibly self absorbed people out there. From the article it sounds like he is one of them.
- Status