Guns in Wa. stadiums

[huntingbaldguy]

Ohio State prime example.  Good guy with a gun stops bad guy.

Not one death might i add... besides the attacker.  That's how it should be.

[DaveMonti]

I'm just going to wait here for a bit.  I suspect a few members will be throwing flames in short order. 

 

[baker5150]

Just because they pass a law saying it's legal to carry in a stadium, doesn't mean we will be allowed to by the stadium itself..
My guess is nothing will change, even if this goes thru.

You should read the article again. If the law passes, they won't be allowed to prohibit carry in their stadiums.

The problem with the article, much like all articles, is it lacks all the information.

What it doesn't say is, during a Football, soccer game etc.  It's not up to the stadium.  The stadium is at that time being "leased" to the Seahawks, sounders, etc.  They then have the right to not allow firearms.

I'll see if I can find the article I read this in and post it.

[pianoman9701]

I don't think we'll see flames but I do think that people buy into the BS from the left, so-called free press that there's an inherent danger when someone legally carries a firearm. And there's no proof that there is. However, we have solid proof that in areas where bearing arms is forbidden, criminals feel unopposed and are free to kill at will. We've seen it in schools, movie theaters, stadiums, etc. If the people who wrote these articles and those who opposed these bills were concerned with facts and saving lives, these discussions would be indeed, very short. But they're not concerned with facts or saving lives. They're concerned with controlling how people think about firearms and with making sure that those thoughts are negative and emotional. Facts only get in the way.

[wapiti hunter2]

I would rather see this.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/12/05/new-bill-would-allow-gun-free-zone-victims-to-sue-business-owners/

or this.

http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/06/28/want-a-gun-free-zone-tennessee-says-thats-on-you-literally/

[pianoman9701]

This post should be moved to outdoor advocacy.

[jackelope]

Pretty simple really, what is the threat assessment for an NFL stadium?  What is the justification for possessing a firearm.  Let me ask you this, what reasonable objective would be achieved by this?  Have you ever not attended a ball game because you couldn't carry inside?  Its pretty true to say that large events like this are extremely well policed and adding firearm carriers to the mix brings no added benefit.  But like a said, lots of gun guys are going to be thrilled.

Last i checked there's no justification required for a right.  The stadium was built using taxpayer money and a private organization tells us what we can and can't do there and the state does nothing.

So let's hypothetically say that this new stadium that Russell Wilson just jumped on board with Chris Hansen on gets built, completely with private money. No city of Seattle money. Wouldn't that make it all private property, therefore they can place whatever rule they want on it? I.E. if they don't want people carrying or wearing blue t-shirts or whatever, they can do whatever they dang well please?
I'm trying to envision a situation at a M's game where nobody else would be in the line of fire should someone decide they need to use their weapon. I can't see it.

[pianoman9701]

In a crowd active shooter situation, unarmed people tend to lie flat, get behind cover, or run away from the shooter. In the video's I've watched, clear lanes of fire open rather quickly.

[Angry Perch]

Pretty simple really, what is the threat assessment for an NFL stadium?  What is the justification for possessing a firearm.  Let me ask you this, what reasonable objective would be achieved by this?  Have you ever not attended a ball game because you couldn't carry inside?  Its pretty true to say that large events like this are extremely well policed and adding firearm carriers to the mix brings no added benefit.  But like a said, lots of gun guys are going to be thrilled.

Last i checked there's no justification required for a right.  The stadium was built using taxpayer money and a private organization tells us what we can and can't do there and the state does nothing.

So let's hypothetically say that this new stadium that Russell Wilson just jumped on board with Chris Hansen on gets built, completely with private money. No city of Seattle money. Wouldn't that make it all private property, therefore they can place whatever rule they want on it? I.E. if they don't want people carrying or wearing blue t-shirts or whatever, they can do whatever they dang well please?
I'm trying to envision a situation at a M's game where nobody else would be in the line of fire should someone decide they need to use their weapon. I can't see it.

That all depends on how horrible the Mariners are at that given time!

[jackelope]

In a crowd active shooter situation, unarmed people tend to lie flat, get behind cover, or run away from the shooter. In the video's I've watched, clear lanes of fire open rather quickly.

Does a 10 year old know to do that?
Hopefully people are able to move faster than bullets can fly?? Especially the ones who can't see that someone is about to pull a trigger.
I don't like it.

[Boss .300 winmag]

I do believe you have to go thru a metal detector to get into all the stadiums, plus they check bags for stuff. So with that said, how is someone going to get in a weapon to do an attack on the occupants? 

[pianoman9701]

In a crowd active shooter situation, unarmed people tend to lie flat, get behind cover, or run away from the shooter. In the video's I've watched, clear lanes of fire open rather quickly.

Does a 10 year old know to do that?
Hopefully people are able to move faster than bullets can fly?? Especially the ones who can't see that someone is about to pull a trigger.
I don't like it.

No, but the parent who's with the 10 year old does. Whether it's a cop or an armed citizen, an active shooter needs to be stopped before he kills possibly scores more people. Either the cop or the armed citizen may miss and shoot, even possibly kill a bystander. But killing the shooter ASAP will ultimately save way more lives than standing around waiting for everyone to be safe and out of the way. We're not talking about an armed robbery or a car jacking where killing the perpetrator is a judgement call and may be an unnecessary risk to bystanders. We're talking about lots of people being killed if the guy isn't stopped. If someone's sitting right next to him with a firearm, it stops really fast.

[pianoman9701]

There are a let of good points made for both sides of the issue.  Here is my one point.  This situation unlike any other mass shooter scenario occurs in a packed stadium, a location that is actively being secured.  This is not a gun free zone.  There are tens if not hundreds or more armed law enforcement officers and equally as many if not more unarmed security personnel.  The only thing that is accomplished by allowing a firearm into this scenario is you now have made it easier for an attack to become an armed attack.  It doesn't have anything to do with the law abiding citizen who wants to carry concealed.  It has to do with keeping the potential for greater threat from increasing due to the introduction of firearms into a situation where none were before.

So, if civilians were not allowed to carry in the stadium, as now, you're of the opinion that it would make it harder for an active shooter to get guns in? Because, with any planning at all and especially with assistance, it wouldn't. This isn't an airport. The security isn't that tight. Anyone who wants to get into a stadium with firearms now could easily accomplish that.

[jackelope]

In a crowd active shooter situation, unarmed people tend to lie flat, get behind cover, or run away from the shooter. In the video's I've watched, clear lanes of fire open rather quickly.

Does a 10 year old know to do that?
Hopefully people are able to move faster than bullets can fly?? Especially the ones who can't see that someone is about to pull a trigger.
I don't like it.

No, but the parent who's with the 10 year old does. Whether it's a cop or an armed citizen, an active shooter needs to be stopped before he kills possibly scores more people. Either the cop or the armed citizen may miss and shoot, even possibly kill a bystander. But killing the shooter ASAP will ultimately save way more lives than standing around waiting for everyone to be safe and out of the way. We're not talking about an armed robbery or a car jacking where killing the perpetrator is a judgement call and may be an unnecessary risk to bystanders. We're talking about lots of people being killed if the guy isn't stopped. If someone's sitting right next to him with a firearm, it stops really fast.

Not sure if you have kids or had kids, but keeping a 10 year old within immediate range to grab/push/shove/whatever towards a safe location is virtually impossible. I guess I don't trust 90% of the people who might be carrying to be educated and trained as to what the right thing to do is in that scenario. That's not the same as an intruder in your house or a carjacking or some other less populated situation. Everybody has all the training they need when they're talking about it via their keyboard. When the crap hits the fan, not many people actually know what to do. That is a real life fact.

 

[csaaphill]

I'd be for it. far too many places already knee jerk on our rights so anything that would allow people to carry while enjoying a game, I'm all for.