Post by: TLEVIN40 on December 13, 2016, 11:24:32 AM
Maybe I missed someone else posting this or something similar. Thoughts?
Post by: Ghost Hunter on December 13, 2016, 11:58:07 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 13, 2016, 12:11:09 PM
The HP can have some good articles but ones like these always push my buttons. They give no facts, statistics, etc. They just paint a bleak picture of gun battles in the stadiums with enraged drunk spectators. It's ridiculous. I know the bill will never pass in this state but I wish it would.
Post by: TLEVIN40 on December 13, 2016, 12:17:30 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 13, 2016, 12:28:24 PM
With fights in stadiums almost every game just seems like trouble. I wonder if stadiums would go with a guns only section and put bullet proof glass around the section. :dunno:
That would be worse than marking "Gun Free Zones!"
Post by: baker5150 on December 13, 2016, 12:36:56 PM
My guess is nothing will change, even if this goes thru.
Post by: TLEVIN40 on December 13, 2016, 12:40:58 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 13, 2016, 12:41:15 PM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 13, 2016, 12:46:25 PM
Another one of those subjects where I just shake my head and "why?". I"m sure there will be no end of "gun guys" who will think this is the best idea this week, hopefully the stadium management will simply say no.
And why do you think allowing concealed carry would be a bad idea? Someone carrying wouldn't be allowed to purchase alcohol, so the HP's fear of drunk, competition-crazed spectators is hogwash. And, concealed carriers are the most law-abiding demographic of any group in every category of crime from citations to murder. If the law were to pass, stadium management wouldn't be able to say "no". I guess I don't understand your objection based on the fact that one-in-ten Washingtonians are concealed carriers and we don't have massive shooting problems from them elsewhere. I hate that we have massive public events and good citizens are disarmed.
Post by: Bob33 on December 13, 2016, 12:59:40 PM
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 walked a mile or more in downtown Seattle on a dark night, to and from your parking spot, to attend an event at CenturyLink?
Post by: npaull on December 13, 2016, 01:07:24 PM
Quote
The HP can have some good articles but ones like these always push my buttons. They give no facts, statistics, etc. They just paint a bleak picture of gun battles in the stadiums with enraged drunk spectators. It's ridiculous. I know the bill will never pass in this state but I wish it would.
The Huffington Post has become a cesspool of PC hyper-liberal BS. And ironically I consider myself quite liberal! Although kinda more libertarian in a lot of ways these days...
Anyway I think the game theory of carrying in public for the most part makes it a foolish thing to do for the overwhelming majority of gun owners. And probably the last thing a stadium full of variously drunken, hyped-up people needs is yahoos carrying. Because it's hard for me to believe that for every responsible, cool-headed, useful-if-it-hits-the-fan carrying person in the stadium, there won't be several who - let's face it - probably aren't responsible enough to own power tools.
Post by: npaull on December 13, 2016, 01:10:37 PM
Quote
And, concealed carriers are the most law-abiding demographic of any group in every category of crime from citations to murder.
I concede that this is a compelling fact in many ways. However, if there ever were an environment in which an otherwise well-intentioned concealed carrier could lose control of their weapon...
Post by: TLEVIN40 on December 13, 2016, 01:12:40 PM
Not just the Huntington Post reporting on it, there are many news outlets. Hp just happened to be the one I copied.
Here is Sports Illustrated's article.
http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/12/10/washington-guns-stadiums-bill-seahawks-mariners (http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/12/10/washington-guns-stadiums-bill-seahawks-mariners)
Post by: huntingbaldguy on December 13, 2016, 01:16:26 PM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 13, 2016, 01:26:25 PM
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.
What was the threat assessment for the stadium in Paris before that attack? We have a unique situation in the US where citizens are empowered to fight back in case of some kind of attack instead of waiting somewhere to die. I assert that had people been armed in Paris, Brussels, and Madrid, there's a good chance fewer people would've been murdered. I know of no tangible evidence available that suggests that legally armed American citizens are a threat to the safety of those around them except in very isolated instances.
Post by: huntingbaldguy on December 13, 2016, 01:30:50 PM
Not one death might i add... besides the attacker. That's how it should be.
Post by: DaveMonti on December 13, 2016, 01:38:52 PM
:peep:
Post by: baker5150 on December 13, 2016, 01:47:14 PM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 13, 2016, 01:54:29 PM
Post by: wapiti hunter2 on December 13, 2016, 02:10:48 PM
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/
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 13, 2016, 02:15:19 PM
Post by: jackelope on December 13, 2016, 02:16:44 PM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 13, 2016, 02:25:07 PM
Post by: Angry Perch on December 13, 2016, 02:25:54 PM
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! :chuckle:
Post by: jackelope on December 13, 2016, 02:38:13 PM
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.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 13, 2016, 03:13:22 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 13, 2016, 04:02:26 PM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 13, 2016, 04:06:04 PM
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.
Post by: jackelope on December 13, 2016, 04:19:40 PM
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.
Post by: csaaphill on December 13, 2016, 04:24:30 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 13, 2016, 04:27:47 PM
Post by: jackelope on December 13, 2016, 04:36:01 PM
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.
Truthfully very few people have any real training to speak of, not that they aren't competent and able to handle a weapon, but actually trained in shoot/no shoot, or multiple gunmen scenarios, very few who aren't law enforcement can say they are trained.
Right. That's my point.
Post by: Bean Counter on December 13, 2016, 04:51:55 PM
Last I read the DOJ statistics the average LEO only hits his target 20% of the time. Give me an armed Joe the Plumber in the bleachers any day. :twocents:
Post by: jackelope on December 13, 2016, 05:34:22 PM
Amazing the Master Jedi marksmanship one apparently obtains when a badge gets pinned on.
Last I read the DOJ statistics the average LEO only hits his target 20% of the time. Give me an armed Joe the Plumber in the bleachers any day. :twocents:
Because the armed Joe the Plumber has that much more training or is better than 20% average? Doubt it. I just don't believe that someone who has likely never fired a gun in a high stress situation in an environment like that will do any better. Not saying a police officer will either...just saying..some training is better than no training. Some experience is better than no experience.
Post by: NW-GSP on December 13, 2016, 05:38:17 PM
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 walked a mile or more in downtown Seattle on a dark night, to and from your parking spot, to attend an event at CenturyLink?
I use to be a delivery driver in downtown Seattle, I have had a knife pulled on me twice. Pulling my gun out resolved the situation both times. I do not go to the games in Seattle due to the restriction on guns in the stadiums. Don't forget that the NFL does. It even allow off duty LEO to carry at the games and I think that is pathetic.
Post by: Scvette on December 13, 2016, 05:48:54 PM
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.
Did you ever think bad guys don't follow the law? Pretty simple! I'm sure you'd be one of the 1st guys to file a lawsuit if you were in a no firearm restaurant and a bad guy with a gun started shooting everyone,why didn't the restaurant protect us. I can say yes on your question about not being able to carry at a game,I wouldn't go. Name one stadium EVER where there has been a mass shooting,heck name one where there's been one person shot.....and I mean inside not outside a stadium. Being that they are becoming gun free zones...it's only a matter of time before a nut job goes off in one.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 13, 2016, 05:51:34 PM
Post by: Scvette on December 13, 2016, 06:00:29 PM
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.
So you'd feel more comfortable knowing there's no one in the area that could legally have a gun to try and stop someone who want to kill as many people as they can! So you'd cower down and hope they would let you live....not me,if I wasn't carrying,which won't happen.,I'd be wishing someone else was. I guess that's why the world has sheeple
Post by: Scvette on December 13, 2016, 06:04:49 PM
Amazing the Master Jedi marksmanship one apparently obtains when a badge gets pinned on.
Last I read the DOJ statistics the average LEO only hits his target 20% of the time. Give me an armed Joe the Plumber in the bleachers any day. :twocents:
Because the armed Joe the Plumber has that much more training or is better than 20% average? Doubt it. I just don't believe that someone who has likely never fired a gun in a high stress situation in an environment like that will do any better. Not saying a police officer will either...just saying..some training is better than no training. Some experience is better than no experience.
As to your training saying.A good guy with a gun,when there's a bad guy with a gun,is better than a watching people die cause some people are afraid of guns.
Post by: Lucky1 on December 13, 2016, 06:06:54 PM
Gun Free type of zones are a wonderful idea and safe for the general public...:yeah:
And as our society becomes more enlightened and civilized we are even safer....
Post by: Alchase on December 13, 2016, 06:09:47 PM
"The Huffington Post has "become" a cesspool of PC hyper-liberal BS. "
The Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005 as an overtly liberal/left commentary outlet and alternative to news aggregators such as the Drudge Report,
HP has always been a "cesspool of BS"
LOL
Post by: Scvette on December 13, 2016, 06:10:26 PM
Gun Free type of zones are a wonderful idea and safe for the general public...:yeah:
And as our society becomes more enlightened and civilized we are even safer....
And trophys for everyone
Post by: ghosthunter on December 13, 2016, 06:49:43 PM
But folks going to the games walking several blocks in Seattle CC. Get to the stadium and now what. Do they leave their gun in their car? Forced to leave it home?
I doubt someone would need to draw in a stadium. But to and from is more likely.
Many folks don't know that court houses must provide secure storage for self defense firearms while the owners are conducting business in the building.
I could see that at stadiums maybe.
In the end a person who has not been prohibited should to be able to carry un-restricted any where the American flag flys.
I do not believe anyone should be able to restrict personal carry in any way.
Post by: ghosthunter on December 13, 2016, 07:02:20 PM
Apply that thinking to any thing you do in your life.
Driving a car.
Hunting
Skiing
Anything.
Ridiculous argument with no facts to back it up. :twocents:
Post by: Scvette on December 13, 2016, 07:13:11 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on December 13, 2016, 07:55:11 PM
Amazing the Master Jedi marksmanship one apparently obtains when a badge gets pinned on.
Last I read the DOJ statistics the average LEO only hits his target 20% of the time. Give me an armed Joe the Plumber in the bleachers any day. :twocents:
Because the armed Joe the Plumber has that much more training or is better than 20% average? Doubt it. I just don't believe that someone who has likely never fired a gun in a high stress situation in an environment like that will do any better. Not saying a police officer will either...just saying..some training is better than no training. Some experience is better than no experience.
Ok gotta go #BeanCounter on ya...
First off, cops are 5x more likely to shoot the wrong person:
"...Although only 2 percent of those involved in civilian shootings are misidentified, 11 percent of individuals involved in police shootings were later found to be innocents misidentified as criminals..."
https://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/02/17/fact-police-are-much-more-likely-to-shoot-the-wrong-person-than-armed-citizens/
According to the University of Chicago, for every two bad guys the cops kill, they kill one innocent person.
http://www.actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml
Armed citizens kill at least twice as many bad guys as do cops
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
DOJ study of incarerated felons indicated that more than half of prisoners feared armed citizens more than cops.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/57-of-criminals-fear-armed-citizens-more-than-cops/
Still looking for it, but there's a metric out there somewhere that specifically says that armed citizens shooting back hit the bad guys at better %s than the cops.
Look, I'm one of the most pro-LEO members on this forum, but cops have a tough job that's just simply asymmetrical with the benefits of a widely armed citizenry. :twocents:
Post by: Scvette on December 13, 2016, 08:28:11 PM
Amazing the Master Jedi marksmanship one apparently obtains when a badge gets pinned on.
Last I read the DOJ statistics the average LEO only hits his target 20% of the time. Give me an armed Joe the Plumber in the bleachers any day. :twocents:
Because the armed Joe the Plumber has that much more training or is better than 20% average? Doubt it. I just don't believe that someone who has likely never fired a gun in a high stress situation in an environment like that will do any better. Not saying a police officer will either...just saying..some training is better than no training. Some experience is better than no experience.
Ok gotta go #BeanCounter on ya...
First off, cops are 5x more likely to shoot the wrong person:
"...Although only 2 percent of those involved in civilian shootings are misidentified, 11 percent of individuals involved in police shootings were later found to be innocents misidentified as criminals..."
https://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/02/17/fact-police-are-much-more-likely-to-shoot-the-wrong-person-than-armed-citizens/
According to the University of Chicago, for every two bad guys the cops kill, they kill one innocent person.
http://www.actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml
Armed citizens kill at least twice as many bad guys as do cops
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
DOJ study of incarerated felons indicated that more than half of prisoners feared armed citizens more than cops.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/57-of-criminals-fear-armed-citizens-more-than-cops/
Still looking for it, but there's a metric out there somewhere that specifically says that armed citizens shooting back hit the bad guys at better %s than the cops.
Look, I'm one of the most pro-LEO members on this forum, but cops have a tough job that's just simply asymmetrical with the benefits of a widely armed citizenry. :twocents:
Who do you think you are...going and citing facts :chuckle: isn't it better when people pull there info from there butts. :yike: good job! :yeah:
Post by: b.roberts on December 13, 2016, 08:37:08 PM
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Post by: b.roberts on December 13, 2016, 08:39:57 PM
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Post by: EmeraldBullet on December 13, 2016, 09:41:12 PM
"(2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:
...
(b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:
(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
..."
Post by: ghosthunter on December 13, 2016, 10:25:03 PM
They do the same at Seafair.
If the city was in charge of the whole thing than firearm could not be barred.
Post by: pcal on December 13, 2016, 10:25:37 PM
Thoughts? Heck no. Guns are scary.Guns are scary for the sheeple :A Loyola University (New Orleans) professor called the cops on a student of hers because he showed up in his POLICE uniform for a schedualed class.The dispatcher asked for his badge # to check if he was a real officer.The dispatcher asked if he was threatening or being disruptive.No,BUT HE HAS A GUN! Look it up ,I couldn'd believe it wasnt made up til I read it.Story was from 12/9/16 so was just last week.
The HP can have some good articles but ones like these always push my buttons. They give no facts, statistics, etc. They just paint a bleak picture of gun battles in the stadiums with enraged drunk spectators. It's ridiculous. I know the bill will never pass in this state but I wish it would.
Post by: Special T on December 13, 2016, 11:09:28 PM
I just gave up. I prefer not to go to Seattle for any reason. Certainly not with my wife and kids for "fun". If I'm that hard up for the game the TV has better coverage anyway... better thing to do and better places to support with my cash.
Post by: Gunsmoke on December 14, 2016, 01:15:24 AM
I just gave up. I prefer not to go to Seattle for any reason. Certainly not with my wife and kids for "fun". If I'm that hard up for the game the TV has better coverage anyway... better thing to do and better places to support with my cash.
[/quote]
:yeah:
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 14, 2016, 05:46:35 AM
I have kids and have taken my son to games in stadiums when he was 10. Never out of arm's reach in a stadium. Ever.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.
Post by: jackelope on December 14, 2016, 07:19:55 AM
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.
So you'd feel more comfortable knowing there's no one in the area that could legally have a gun to try and stop someone who want to kill as many people as they can! So you'd cower down and hope they would let you live....not me,if I wasn't carrying,which won't happen.,I'd be wishing someone else was. I guess that's why the world has sheeple
I think you're missing my point. The concern I have is you've got the bad guy and you've got some amateur hour gun owner start shooting and bullets are flying everywhere. Random casualties in that situation are pretty much guaranteed to happen in those crowds. As of now, if you go to Safeco field, you get wanded or through the metal detector. You have a gun. You can't go in with the gun. Now we have a new law that says you can. Some nutcase with a CWP now walks into Safeco field with his now legal gun and decides to shoot up the place. They let him in with it because it was legal. Obviously someone could sneak a gun in probably, but now it's pretty much legal to walk in with one as long as you have a CWP.
I can't tell you the last time I went to a mall. I might go to 1 game at a big stadium per year....maybe... I don't like crowds. With all the crap going on in the world, I'd much rather stay out of the city and the malls, etc. I like to stay in my small town. Friday night lights and all. You know. I am a gun owner, handgun owner, I carry at times, I'm not anti-carry or anything like that.
Post by: haugenna on December 14, 2016, 08:04:50 AM
Heck, I have to decommission my weapon going to a gun show.
There are better things to spend our energy on restoring gun rights.
This will be a black eye for us in the long run if it were to pass.
Think of all the suicides that would take place at the Mariner games. :chuckle:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 14, 2016, 08:25:20 AM
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.
So you'd feel more comfortable knowing there's no one in the area that could legally have a gun to try and stop someone who want to kill as many people as they can! So you'd cower down and hope they would let you live....not me,if I wasn't carrying,which won't happen.,I'd be wishing someone else was. I guess that's why the world has sheeple
I think you're missing my point. The concern I have is you've got the bad guy and you've got some amateur hour gun owner start shooting and bullets are flying everywhere. Random casualties in that situation are pretty much guaranteed to happen in those crowds. As of now, if you go to Safeco field, you get wanded or through the metal detector. You have a gun. You can't go in with the gun. Now we have a new law that says you can. Some nutcase with a CWP now walks into Safeco field with his now legal gun and decides to shoot up the place. They let him in with it because it was legal. Obviously someone could sneak a gun in probably, but now it's pretty much legal to walk in with one as long as you have a CWP.
I can't tell you the last time I went to a mall. I might go to 1 game at a big stadium per year....maybe... I don't like crowds. With all the crap going on in the world, I'd much rather stay out of the city and the malls, etc. I like to stay in my small town. Friday night lights and all. You know. I am a gun owner, handgun owner, I carry at times, I'm not anti-carry or anything like that.
How many rounds are shot at a bad guy until the threat is done by LEO's ? 10, 20, 64 and how many rounds fly around not hitting the target ?
Post by: haugenna on December 14, 2016, 08:29:18 AM
I don't know what the big deal is on here. Laws do not pertain to criminals, never have, never will.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.
So you'd feel more comfortable knowing there's no one in the area that could legally have a gun to try and stop someone who want to kill as many people as they can! So you'd cower down and hope they would let you live....not me,if I wasn't carrying,which won't happen.,I'd be wishing someone else was. I guess that's why the world has sheeple
I think you're missing my point. The concern I have is you've got the bad guy and you've got some amateur hour gun owner start shooting and bullets are flying everywhere. Random casualties in that situation are pretty much guaranteed to happen in those crowds. As of now, if you go to Safeco field, you get wanded or through the metal detector. You have a gun. You can't go in with the gun. Now we have a new law that says you can. Some nutcase with a CWP now walks into Safeco field with his now legal gun and decides to shoot up the place. They let him in with it because it was legal. Obviously someone could sneak a gun in probably, but now it's pretty much legal to walk in with one as long as you have a CWP.
I can't tell you the last time I went to a mall. I might go to 1 game at a big stadium per year....maybe... I don't like crowds. With all the crap going on in the world, I'd much rather stay out of the city and the malls, etc. I like to stay in my small town. Friday night lights and all. You know. I am a gun owner, handgun owner, I carry at times, I'm not anti-carry or anything like that.
How many rounds are shot at a bad guy until the threat is done by LEO's ? 10, 20, 64 and how many rounds fly around not hitting the target ?
28 in this exchange with one finding the asleep "perps" hand.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fkppHG0U_Eo
Post by: Bean Counter on December 14, 2016, 08:41:18 AM
Post by: jackelope on December 14, 2016, 09:36:37 AM
I don't know what the big deal is on here. Laws do not pertain to criminals, never have, never will.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.
So you'd feel more comfortable knowing there's no one in the area that could legally have a gun to try and stop someone who want to kill as many people as they can! So you'd cower down and hope they would let you live....not me,if I wasn't carrying,which won't happen.,I'd be wishing someone else was. I guess that's why the world has sheeple
I think you're missing my point. The concern I have is you've got the bad guy and you've got some amateur hour gun owner start shooting and bullets are flying everywhere. Random casualties in that situation are pretty much guaranteed to happen in those crowds. As of now, if you go to Safeco field, you get wanded or through the metal detector. You have a gun. You can't go in with the gun. Now we have a new law that says you can. Some nutcase with a CWP now walks into Safeco field with his now legal gun and decides to shoot up the place. They let him in with it because it was legal. Obviously someone could sneak a gun in probably, but now it's pretty much legal to walk in with one as long as you have a CWP.
I can't tell you the last time I went to a mall. I might go to 1 game at a big stadium per year....maybe... I don't like crowds. With all the crap going on in the world, I'd much rather stay out of the city and the malls, etc. I like to stay in my small town. Friday night lights and all. You know. I am a gun owner, handgun owner, I carry at times, I'm not anti-carry or anything like that.
How many rounds are shot at a bad guy until the threat is done by LEO's ? 10, 20, 64 and how many rounds fly around not hitting the target ?
I guess I feel like if it's legal to have guns in the stadiums, there's more potential for bad stuff to happen, thus increasing the odds of more random bullets flying around. I don't believe that you or I or most people posting in this thread would be able to handle an active shooter situation any better than a cop. Sorry. I just don't.
Maybe I'm wrong, but if it suddenly becomes legal to bring them in, there's more potential for some nutcase jackwagon to bring one in.
Post by: Special T on December 14, 2016, 09:40:15 AM
Strangly enough if we look to Oregon they have a better carry law in this regard. Cc holders can carry on school grounds and HS football games and such. Haven't been any problems of note from CC holders there.
Post by: huntnphool on December 14, 2016, 11:08:36 AM
Post by: Bob33 on December 14, 2016, 11:10:41 AM
Post by: EmeraldBullet on December 14, 2016, 11:33:15 AM
I guess for me it comes down to is: Is the added security of being armed while walking back to my car, worth the risk of some idiot doing something stupid in the stadium and further damaging gun rights in the long run.
Post by: huntingbaldguy on December 14, 2016, 11:38:49 AM
I agree with Macs B and Bob33.
I guess for me it comes down to is: Is the added security of being armed while walking back to my car, worth the risk of some idiot doing something stupid in the stadium and further damaging gun rights in the long run.
Tell me sir... what good are gun rights to you if you're walking back to your car and get killed because you didn't have a gun? Tell me why gun rights matter to you after that... please.
Post by: huntingbaldguy on December 14, 2016, 11:42:55 AM
Never been involved in a shooting have you? Most people will never "clear leather" unless they are pretty certain they can take the target out.
If you are lobbing shots at an active shooter you will become his target. Trust me, the guy shooting at an "active shooter" is so because he's pretty sure of his skills.
All your "Rambo" bullpucky goes out the window when someone is trying to kill you.
And you're welcome if you're ever in an active shooter situation and i start "lobbing shots" and take the target off everyone else there, even if for the briefest of moments, so that people who may otherwise have not gotten to hard cover, can do so.
You ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, the one who pulls his pistol out and starts taking shots at the active shoot, is being the least selfish person there? Like, oh... an officer, who puts himself in that situation willingly?
Post by: EmeraldBullet on December 14, 2016, 11:48:03 AM
I agree with Macs B and Bob33.Tell me sir... what good are gun rights to you if you're walking back to your car and get killed because you didn't have a gun? Tell me why gun rights matter to you after that... please.
I guess for me it comes down to is: Is the added security of being armed while walking back to my car, worth the risk of some idiot doing something stupid in the stadium and further damaging gun rights in the long run.
I didn't say which side I think outweighs the other. I'm still undecided, need to give it more thought. You make a very valid point however.
Post by: jackelope on December 14, 2016, 11:55:21 AM
I've never been involved in a shooting. I imagine most of the people on this forum never have. Have you?
Are you asking me or Campmeat? I don't think I was spewing any Rambo jargon.
:dunno:
Post by: huntingbaldguy on December 14, 2016, 12:12:48 PM
Never been involved in a shooting have you? Most people will never "clear leather" unless they are pretty certain they can take the target out.
If you are lobbing shots at an active shooter you will become his target. Trust me, the guy shooting at an "active shooter" is so because he's pretty sure of his skills.
All your "Rambo" bullpucky goes out the window when someone is trying to kill you.
And you're welcome if you're ever in an active shooter situation and i start "lobbing shots" and take the target off everyone else there, even if for the briefest of moments, so that people who may otherwise have not gotten to hard cover, can do so.
What happens when the LEOs who are already there in the stadium are distracted by you lobbing your bullets defending everyone and instead of engaging the shooter, have to sort out who is the bad guy and who isn't?
One of the things I think some people are unclear on, your concealed firearm is to defend yourself, the moment you start doing anything else you become my target, and LEOs target and anyone else who is defending themselves and their family. The last thing a crowded stadium shooter scenario needs is more shooters adding to the confusion.
Where is this defined? I'd like to see what RCW or federal law you're talking about that specifically says it's not to defend anyone but yourself.
Also how did i suddenly become your target if you're against carrying a gun in a stadium so you left it home?
Also... how are you defending your family if that firearm is only for defending yourself? Lets be consistent here.
Historically speaking, the good guy who tries to help, doesn't just "lob shots" into a crowd. You give very little credit to the average concealed carrier... and very little evidence might i add, to support your statements. There's quite a bit of evidence to support positions contrary to yours however, and quite a few scenarios where police were helped out by good citizens with guns.
So i guess what i'm trying to say is, you're arguing your personal opinion and your distrust of people.
Post by: ghosthunter on December 14, 2016, 12:15:34 PM
I don't know what the big deal is on here. Laws do not pertain to criminals, never have, never will.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.
So you'd feel more comfortable knowing there's no one in the area that could legally have a gun to try and stop someone who want to kill as many people as they can! So you'd cower down and hope they would let you live....not me,if I wasn't carrying,which won't happen.,I'd be wishing someone else was. I guess that's why the world has sheeple
I think you're missing my point. The concern I have is you've got the bad guy and you've got some amateur hour gun owner start shooting and bullets are flying everywhere. Random casualties in that situation are pretty much guaranteed to happen in those crowds. As of now, if you go to Safeco field, you get wanded or through the metal detector. You have a gun. You can't go in with the gun. Now we have a new law that says you can. Some nutcase with a CWP now walks into Safeco field with his now legal gun and decides to shoot up the place. They let him in with it because it was legal. Obviously someone could sneak a gun in probably, but now it's pretty much legal to walk in with one as long as you have a CWP.
I can't tell you the last time I went to a mall. I might go to 1 game at a big stadium per year....maybe... I don't like crowds. With all the crap going on in the world, I'd much rather stay out of the city and the malls, etc. I like to stay in my small town. Friday night lights and all. You know. I am a gun owner, handgun owner, I carry at times, I'm not anti-carry or anything like that.
How many rounds are shot at a bad guy until the threat is done by LEO's ? 10, 20, 64 and how many rounds fly around not hitting the target ?
I guess I feel like if it's legal to have guns in the stadiums, there's more potential for bad stuff to happen, thus increasing the odds of more random bullets flying around. I don't believe that you or I or most people posting in this thread would be able to handle an active shooter situation any better than a cop. Sorry. I just don't.
Maybe I'm wrong, but if it suddenly becomes legal to bring them in, there's more potential for some nutcase jackwagon to bring one in.
:sry: :sry: :sry:
You just made the case for no one to have a gun any where any time. Because something might happen.
I read something one time that said " 90 % of things people worry about never come to pass"
:twocents:
Post by: Bean Counter on December 14, 2016, 12:35:49 PM
Post by: Band on December 14, 2016, 12:37:08 PM
For those who believe their rights are infringed by not being able to carry in the stadium, I'm guessing you're the same people who get rankled about any type of infringements; controls on automatic weapons and high capacity guns, for instance. You showed that by the over-the-top display of guns in Starbucks a few years back. Shall we assume you want to make sure your rights are protected from these high capacity and automatic gun infringements in stadiums as well?
If you're concerned about the inability to carry on the way from your vehicle to the stadium and back maybe you should start a business next to the stadium where you check guns in/out for a fee. How about parking closer to the stadium? How about staying home if you can't pack inside the stadium?
Post by: EmeraldBullet on December 14, 2016, 12:50:46 PM
You showed that by the over-the-top display of guns in Starbucks a few years back.
Funny you bring up starbucks. I like to open carry when I grab my morning dark roast. Not sure if it's a starbucks policy, or if it's just the people in my local one are so pro gun they give me preferential treatment, but they always make my coffee first, even if there were other people who already made their orders. No complaints here, I like being able to get in and out.
Post by: Band on December 14, 2016, 12:57:53 PM
Post by: haugenna on December 14, 2016, 01:06:18 PM
While we're at it, why not ban guns in movie theaters? Farmers markets? Convention centers?
The sky is falling mentality on here is laughable. You correlate the environment at a stadium to that of a convention center, farmers market, and movie theater? When was the last time you went to either of the above and saw 1-200 law enforcement officers and security watching the crowd or had to go through a bag check at these locations? Stadiums are not soft targets.
Most of us have been to a NFL game and have seen the stupidity of some "adults" in this environment. There is a lot of alcohol consumed at these games and the last thing the gun community needs is some irresponsible gun owner bringing us all down. Whether we like it or not, they represent us, especially when slanted by MSM.
Why would anyone want to give money to an organization like the Seattle Seahawks whose owners are dead against our 2nd Amendment?
I do agree with Bob33 that the danger is outside the stadium but that could be said for your favorite watering hole, which also prohibits firearms.
Post by: EmeraldBullet on December 14, 2016, 01:09:34 PM
I wasn't talking about a pistol on the hip when I used the words "over-the-top". I think you've seen some of the firearms in pics that I'm talking about and they have nothing to do with carrying for personal protection.Fair enough, but my between the lines point I suppose, is that on the wetside, people don't feel comfortable around you when you open carry, holstered. There's no chance this bill passes.
As for weather or not concealed carry should be allowed in stadiums, I would support the bill more if the requirements to get a concealed carry were more stringent. Like if a safety or proficiency test were required. As it is, you pay a fee and if you have a clean record you pass. Not sure that's enough imo to change the way it is now. It is true our gun rights are being violated in a sense, especially when we have to walk back to our vehicles unarmed. But, if the bill passes that's taking away the rights of the people leasing the stadiums. Either way someone will be losing a right. I'm glad this bill is out there because this is an important discussion to be had. I am still figuring out how I feel overall, I see valid points from both sides.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 14, 2016, 01:10:59 PM
Apparently the level of security has been sufficient to keep shootings out of stadiums. Unless someone can show evidence to the contrary, the need to protect yourself from others with guns at stadiums doesn't appear to be a problem.
For those who believe their rights are infringed by not being able to carry in the stadium, I'm guessing you're the same people who get rankled about any type of infringements; controls on automatic weapons and high capacity guns, for instance. You showed that by the over-the-top display of guns in Starbucks a few years back. Shall we assume you want to make sure your rights are protected from these high capacity and automatic gun infringements in stadiums as well?
If you're concerned about the inability to carry on the way from your vehicle to the stadium and back maybe you should start a business next to the stadium where you check guns in/out for a fee. How about parking closer to the stadium? How about staying home if you can't pack inside the stadium?
There have been mass shootings and killings at stadiums in other countries, countries which have stricter gun laws and higher security at the events than we. With ISIS and Al-Shabaab ramping up terror on US soil, I suggest it's not unreasonable to expect such an attack on our soil in the future. We haven't had a nuclear terror attack here in the US either. Does that mean it won't happen? No. I don't carry a firearm anywhere expecting trouble and the overwhelming evidence says it will never happen. I've never been in a gun battle but I ongoingly attend firearms and defense courses if that unlikely possibility becomes a reality. For the thousands of Americans each day who fend off crime with a personal firearm, they're really glad they had it and used it. There are not thousands of stories each day about defensive shootings that went wrong and you know if there were, we'd hear about it. Concealed carriers are an exceptionally conscientious and law-abiding group of people.
As far as staying home is concerned, I do a lot. I avoid dangerous situations, cross the street when I'm uncomfortable, and don't walk down dark alleys. I rarely go to malls and always disobey their gun policy when I do. I don't go to movie theaters. It's not that I'm scared. I don't want to cause myself to be in a defensive shooting situation. I'm not under the impression my rights are being denied when a private business enacts an anti-gun policy. I may not award them with my business, but that's another discussion. But the stadium is publicly owned. If I'm out in public, I'm carrying and I should be able to carry on any piece of property that the public owns and or pays taxes on to keep and maintain. It also means that I'm able to protect family and me going to or from the event, as well, where there isn't a police presence on the street. Your comment about starting a business next to the stadium is absurd in the least, Band. There are hundreds of large scale events each year all over the country where concealed carry is allowed. There aren't any drunken fights that turn bad or arguments which turn deadly. I will turn your early statement around and say unless you can prove to the contrary, there's no elevated danger level from law-abiding citizens carrying at major crowd events, or anywhere else for that matter.
Post by: huntingbaldguy on December 14, 2016, 01:11:05 PM
Gosh where to begin.
No law or other rule says that its your responsibility to defend you and mine to defend me. Simple fact of life, I don't know you from Adam. Because of that you are just as much an unknown factor as the other shooter in the stadium, therefore my target. You've already made one mistake by assuming that you were only one carrying a firearm. What other mistake will you make? Your assumption is because I don't endorse this change that I won't participate in it. Again your mistake. What is your plan, how will you identify yourself to all the other CPLs as a good guy? How do you identify yourself to law enforcement as a non threat? You are right about one thing, that is that I give no credit to anyone I don't know personally when it comes to firing into a crowd and defending myself and my family. Would you be trusting of me in that same scenario considering we've never met?
If i'm your target then you shouldn't be carrying. It's simple threat evaluation. Am i posing a threat and firing shots? Not to anyone but the shooter and not unless i have a shot and no one else is in my line of fire. You're telling me that you won't be able to judge where shots are coming from and you're going to just start shooting at anyone you see holding a gun? You're the person you're speaking out about, not me.
And would i trust you? I dunno, did you walk into a stadium, pull your gun out and start shooting people? Did you fire first? Are people running away from you? Do you have a crazed murderous look in your eyes? Are you hiding and awaiting an opportunity to either flee or defend yourself if need be, like i am, or are you running into the crowd firing shots like a suicidal maniac might be? Did you pull your gun out as a first reaction and start aiming it at every Tom Dick and Harry that ran past you? So many factors to me trusting you, but i'd like to think i would if you and i looked around, assessed the situation, and seemed to come to the same conclusion on what was going on, even if we just gave each other a look like, crap, what do we do, and even if i'd never met you... but if you want to judge me and shoot me while my mind is on the real threat, what can i do about it... that's on you.
I can guarantee you i'm not going to be the one shooting into a crowd. I can guarantee you that my gun won't be pointed at anyone i'm not willing to shoot.
Post by: EmeraldBullet on December 14, 2016, 01:22:41 PM
Post by: Bofire on December 14, 2016, 01:34:21 PM
Carl
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 14, 2016, 01:47:15 PM
The last two posts by HBG and Paino are very convincing to me. But I don't see how you convince the general public that this is the case unfortunately.
Lol, this whole discussion is moot. WA will never pass a law like this. Ha! We're just having fun. :tup:
Post by: haugenna on December 14, 2016, 01:51:47 PM
Gosh where to begin.
No law or other rule says that its your responsibility to defend you and mine to defend me. Simple fact of life, I don't know you from Adam. Because of that you are just as much an unknown factor as the other shooter in the stadium, therefore my target. You've already made one mistake by assuming that you were only one carrying a firearm. What other mistake will you make? Your assumption is because I don't endorse this change that I won't participate in it. Again your mistake. What is your plan, how will you identify yourself to all the other CPLs as a good guy? How do you identify yourself to law enforcement as a non threat? You are right about one thing, that is that I give no credit to anyone I don't know personally when it comes to firing into a crowd and defending myself and my family. Would you be trusting of me in that same scenario considering we've never met?
If i'm your target then you shouldn't be carrying. It's simple threat evaluation. Am i posing a threat and firing shots? Not to anyone but the shooter and not unless i have a shot and no one else is in my line of fire. You're telling me that you won't be able to judge where shots are coming from and you're going to just start shooting at anyone you see holding a gun? You're the person you're speaking out about, not me.
And would i trust you? I dunno, did you walk into a stadium, pull your gun out and start shooting people? Did you fire first? Are people running away from you? Do you have a crazed murderous look in your eyes? Are you hiding and awaiting an opportunity to either flee or defend yourself if need be, like i am, or are you running into the crowd firing shots like a suicidal maniac might be? Did you pull your gun out as a first reaction and start aiming it at every Tom Dick and Harry that ran past you? So many factors to me trusting you, but i'd like to think i would if you and i looked around, assessed the situation, and seemed to come to the same conclusion on what was going on, even if we just gave each other a look like, crap, what do we do, and even if i'd never met you... but if you want to judge me and shoot me while my mind is on the real threat, what can i do about it... that's on you.
I can guarantee you i'm not going to be the one shooting into a crowd. I can guarantee you that my gun won't be pointed at anyone i'm not willing to shoot.
By the time you figured all of that out, the police two sections down has shot you both.
Post by: Band on December 14, 2016, 02:09:55 PM
There have been mass shootings and killings at stadiums in other countries, countries which have stricter gun laws and higher security at the events than we.Do you have specific instances to back up the mass shootings at stadiums claim? And if so, do you have information about physical screening of attendees at the event so we have an apples to apples comparison to the experience in the U.S.?
If I'm out in public, I'm carrying and I should be able to carry on any piece of property that the public owns and or pays taxes on to keep and maintain.Does that include the courthouse where you might be a litigant in a divorce battle or in attendance at the trial of the guy who molested your child?
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 14, 2016, 02:23:51 PM
Not in a courthouse, but you can check a firearm in before you go in and take it when you leave. There's a much higher level of security in a courthouse than a stadium.There have been mass shootings and killings at stadiums in other countries, countries which have stricter gun laws and higher security at the events than we.Do you have specific instances to back up the mass shootings at stadiums claim? And if so, do you have information about physical screening of attendees at the event so we have an apples to apples comparison to the experience in the U.S.?If I'm out in public, I'm carrying and I should be able to carry on any piece of property that the public owns and or pays taxes on to keep and maintain.Does that include the courthouse where you might be a litigant in a divorce battle or in attendance at the trial of the guy who molested your child?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2011/08/stadium-shooting-mexico-soccer-futbol-panic-game.html
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/shots-fired-lakewood-stadium/137231817
I mistakenly thought people were shot in the Paris stadium a year ago. That was a bomb and if you can get a bomb in, you can get guns in. I think an attack at a stadium is every bit as likely as one in a movie theater or a mall.
Post by: Band on December 14, 2016, 02:46:55 PM
There will always be a few people in a courthouse who are full of hatred for the opposition in the case they are part of so I would never lobby for the right to carry there. Not sure it is much different in a sporting event where a number of folks are amped up with hatred for the other team and fans of that team, who are easy to identify with their team's apparel. Doesn't seem to matter whether the people know each other or not, simply the act of wearing the wrong jersey will get some folks into angry, physical scuffles, which could be enough to begin a gun battle that leaves dead people in the crowd. Add drunkenness to the equation and the odds increase substantially more.Not in a courthouse, but you can check a firearm in before you go in and take it when you leave. There's a much higher level of security in a courthouse than a stadium.There have been mass shootings and killings at stadiums in other countries, countries which have stricter gun laws and higher security at the events than we.Do you have specific instances to back up the mass shootings at stadiums claim? And if so, do you have information about physical screening of attendees at the event so we have an apples to apples comparison to the experience in the U.S.?If I'm out in public, I'm carrying and I should be able to carry on any piece of property that the public owns and or pays taxes on to keep and maintain.Does that include the courthouse where you might be a litigant in a divorce battle or in attendance at the trial of the guy who molested your child?
I've seen some very ugly occurrences between opposing team fans at Seahawks games and I don't trust that everyone in the stadium with a gun has enough sense to keep it holstered when stupid arguments get elevated. Anyone who can't be trusted to keep their fists away from the face of someone in an argument is suspect for being able to keep their firearm holstered when tempers flare. My position is that, with the exception of cops on duty, firearms in stadiums is inherently a bad idea.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 14, 2016, 02:52:04 PM
Post by: Band on December 14, 2016, 03:11:09 PM
Am I willing to promote the right to bring firearms into the mix, knowing that it's just a matter of time before the once shooting-free event is going to have a shooter who wants to make a name for himself by taking out as many people as he can, knowing that thick crowds mean at least one person hit (and potentially killed) per bullet? No.
If I feel unsafe without my gun in a place where guns are not allowed I might choose not to go to that place. But my sense tells me it's wrong to allow guns anywhere and everywhere simply to appease those who don't want to be infringed. Restrictions, wisely applied, can be a good thing.
Post by: Special T on December 14, 2016, 05:00:48 PM
I think you have the best handle on this as explained so far.@Cougartail
I've never been involved in a shooting. I imagine most of the people on this forum never have. Have you?
Are you asking me or Campmeat? I don't think I was spewing any Rambo jargon.
:dunno:
Not meaning to single out anybody in particular. Yes, and I hauled tail. The "fight or flight instinct" is huge. Believe me when I say, "You won't lie to yourself about your true capabilities.". Everyone I know who packs a gun and has never been in a actual shooting situation has a "Hollywood" attitude.
Outside of protecting myself or loved ones I personally would never shoot another person. That is what the police are paid to do. It ruins many peoples life to kill someone. Police Officers included.
Numerous times I took people who claimed they would have no problem shooting someone out on the trapline (back when footholds were legal!). I'd handed them my .22 and told them to put a bullet in the head of a trapped coyote. Not one just grabbed the gun and shot it. Looking a coyote in the eyes and shooting it is easy..
If you understand your right AND RESPONSIBILITIES of discharging your personal weapon you would be wise to only shoot it in defence of yourself or loved ones. Even if you are legally justified it would likely cost you a bunch of $ to defend your self from a civil lawsuit. Unfortunately people do not associate shooting a bad guy with costing a MINIMUM of $20k. If you put it into a dollar context I think anyone remotely responsible with family would exercise all manner of restraint. This doesn't even take into account the fight or flight responce you have experience with.
Post by: Scvette on December 14, 2016, 05:20:00 PM
I don't know what the big deal is on here. Laws do not pertain to criminals, never have, never will.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.
So you'd feel more comfortable knowing there's no one in the area that could legally have a gun to try and stop someone who want to kill as many people as they can! So you'd cower down and hope they would let you live....not me,if I wasn't carrying,which won't happen.,I'd be wishing someone else was. I guess that's why the world has sheeple
I think you're missing my point. The concern I have is you've got the bad guy and you've got some amateur hour gun owner start shooting and bullets are flying everywhere. Random casualties in that situation are pretty much guaranteed to happen in those crowds. As of now, if you go to Safeco field, you get wanded or through the metal detector. You have a gun. You can't go in with the gun. Now we have a new law that says you can. Some nutcase with a CWP now walks into Safeco field with his now legal gun and decides to shoot up the place. They let him in with it because it was legal. Obviously someone could sneak a gun in probably, but now it's pretty much legal to walk in with one as long as you have a CWP.
I can't tell you the last time I went to a mall. I might go to 1 game at a big stadium per year....maybe... I don't like crowds. With all the crap going on in the world, I'd much rather stay out of the city and the malls, etc. I like to stay in my small town. Friday night lights and all. You know. I am a gun owner, handgun owner, I carry at times, I'm not anti-carry or anything like that.
How many rounds are shot at a bad guy until the threat is done by LEO's ? 10, 20, 64 and how many rounds fly around not hitting the target ?
I guess I feel like if it's legal to have guns in the stadiums, there's more potential for bad stuff to happen, thus increasing the odds of more random bullets flying around. I don't believe that you or I or most people posting in this thread would be able to handle an active shooter situation any better than a cop. Sorry. I just don't.
Maybe I'm wrong, but if it suddenly becomes legal to bring them in, there's more potential for some nutcase jackwagon to bring one in.
So your ok with it then if a bad guy does sneak one in,that you'll rely on a police officer to come save you,instead of having a chance to protect yourself? Stadiums are the perfect place for mass casualties and it'll be just a matter of time,look how many people were killed in France,just think if one person could have had a weapon and at least tried to take the bad guys out,I'd rather die trying than just sit and wait.
Post by: b.roberts on December 14, 2016, 06:04:19 PM
I’m more concerned about my safety while outside the stadium, walking to and from my parking location in some of the most dangerous parts of the city. Since it’s not legal to take any sort of the personal protection device (firearm, knife, pepper spray) into the stadium, these policies require fans to be unprotected in a vulnerable part of town, especially if you park quite a distance from the stadium.Exactly. Truly not worried about response to active shooters.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Post by: haugenna on December 14, 2016, 06:05:16 PM
Why do you feel that way? Is it because there are a lot of people there?I don't know what the big deal is on here. Laws do not pertain to criminals, never have, never will.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.
So you'd feel more comfortable knowing there's no one in the area that could legally have a gun to try and stop someone who want to kill as many people as they can! So you'd cower down and hope they would let you live....not me,if I wasn't carrying,which won't happen.,I'd be wishing someone else was. I guess that's why the world has sheeple
I think you're missing my point. The concern I have is you've got the bad guy and you've got some amateur hour gun owner start shooting and bullets are flying everywhere. Random casualties in that situation are pretty much guaranteed to happen in those crowds. As of now, if you go to Safeco field, you get wanded or through the metal detector. You have a gun. You can't go in with the gun. Now we have a new law that says you can. Some nutcase with a CWP now walks into Safeco field with his now legal gun and decides to shoot up the place. They let him in with it because it was legal. Obviously someone could sneak a gun in probably, but now it's pretty much legal to walk in with one as long as you have a CWP.
I can't tell you the last time I went to a mall. I might go to 1 game at a big stadium per year....maybe... I don't like crowds. With all the crap going on in the world, I'd much rather stay out of the city and the malls, etc. I like to stay in my small town. Friday night lights and all. You know. I am a gun owner, handgun owner, I carry at times, I'm not anti-carry or anything like that.
How many rounds are shot at a bad guy until the threat is done by LEO's ? 10, 20, 64 and how many rounds fly around not hitting the target ?
I guess I feel like if it's legal to have guns in the stadiums, there's more potential for bad stuff to happen, thus increasing the odds of more random bullets flying around. I don't believe that you or I or most people posting in this thread would be able to handle an active shooter situation any better than a cop. Sorry. I just don't.
Maybe I'm wrong, but if it suddenly becomes legal to bring them in, there's more potential for some nutcase jackwagon to bring one in.
So your ok with it then if a bad guy does sneak one in,that you'll rely on a police officer to come save you,instead of having a chance to protect yourself? Stadiums are the perfect place for mass casualties and it'll be just a matter of time,look how many people were killed in France,just think if one person could have had a weapon and at least tried to take the bad guys out,I'd rather die trying than just sit and wait.
The perp has to buy an expensive ticket to get in the venue, get past the bag check and security guards and will have a police officer within shooting distance or many people within arms reach.
Post by: Scvette on December 14, 2016, 06:27:11 PM
Why do you feel that way? Is it because there are a lot of people there?I don't know what the big deal is on here. Laws do not pertain to criminals, never have, never will.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.
So you'd feel more comfortable knowing there's no one in the area that could legally have a gun to try and stop someone who want to kill as many people as they can! So you'd cower down and hope they would let you live....not me,if I wasn't carrying,which won't happen.,I'd be wishing someone else was. I guess that's why the world has sheeple
I think you're missing my point. The concern I have is you've got the bad guy and you've got some amateur hour gun owner start shooting and bullets are flying everywhere. Random casualties in that situation are pretty much guaranteed to happen in those crowds. As of now, if you go to Safeco field, you get wanded or through the metal detector. You have a gun. You can't go in with the gun. Now we have a new law that says you can. Some nutcase with a CWP now walks into Safeco field with his now legal gun and decides to shoot up the place. They let him in with it because it was legal. Obviously someone could sneak a gun in probably, but now it's pretty much legal to walk in with one as long as you have a CWP.
I can't tell you the last time I went to a mall. I might go to 1 game at a big stadium per year....maybe... I don't like crowds. With all the crap going on in the world, I'd much rather stay out of the city and the malls, etc. I like to stay in my small town. Friday night lights and all. You know. I am a gun owner, handgun owner, I carry at times, I'm not anti-carry or anything like that.
How many rounds are shot at a bad guy until the threat is done by LEO's ? 10, 20, 64 and how many rounds fly around not hitting the target ?
I guess I feel like if it's legal to have guns in the stadiums, there's more potential for bad stuff to happen, thus increasing the odds of more random bullets flying around. I don't believe that you or I or most people posting in this thread would be able to handle an active shooter situation any better than a cop. Sorry. I just don't.
Maybe I'm wrong, but if it suddenly becomes legal to bring them in, there's more potential for some nutcase jackwagon to bring one in.
So your ok with it then if a bad guy does sneak one in,that you'll rely on a police officer to come save you,instead of having a chance to protect yourself? Stadiums are the perfect place for mass casualties and it'll be just a matter of time,look how many people were killed in France,just think if one person could have had a weapon and at least tried to take the bad guys out,I'd rather die trying than just sit and wait.
The perp has to buy an expensive ticket to get in the venue, get past the bag check and security guards and will have a police officer within shooting distance or many people within arms reach.
As someone else mentioned,get that many people in close quarters and firing one bullet will possibly injure more people. There's not going to be an officer within shooting for sure. Most of the dirt bags or terrorist know they're going to die so the security or buying a ticket doesn't mean anything. I pray it never happens in a stadium,but I feel it eventually will. Like I said,I'd rather have a fighting chance to defend myself,veruses cowering and praying the next bullet a bad guy fires hits me.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 14, 2016, 06:54:13 PM
Post by: Band on December 14, 2016, 06:58:16 PM
Sounds like a good reason to start allowing 70,000 people to start bringing guns to the game. ;)
Post by: csaaphill on December 14, 2016, 07:43:26 PM
Post by: fishngamereaper on December 14, 2016, 08:07:24 PM
Post by: NW-GSP on December 14, 2016, 09:04:20 PM
Stadiums are the perfect place for mass casualties
Sounds like a good reason to start allowing 70,000 people to start bringing guns to the game. ;)
I'm sure the victims in Paris thought the same thing
Post by: Band on December 14, 2016, 09:16:26 PM
Rhetorical question: was there any screening in place to help prevent the Paris attack?Stadiums are the perfect place for mass casualties
Sounds like a good reason to start allowing 70,000 people to start bringing guns to the game. ;)
I'm sure the victims in Paris thought the same thing
Post by: Scvette on December 14, 2016, 09:23:49 PM
Rhetorical question: was there any screening in place to help prevent the Paris attack?Stadiums are the perfect place for mass casualties
Sounds like a good reason to start allowing 70,000 people to start bringing guns to the game. ;)
I'm sure the victims in Paris thought the same thing
Why should they screen anyone there,they have strict gun laws,no ones alowed to own guns there. Oh wait. :yike:
Post by: NW-GSP on December 14, 2016, 10:32:42 PM
Rhetorical question: was there any screening in place to help prevent the Paris attack?Stadiums are the perfect place for mass casualties
Sounds like a good reason to start allowing 70,000 people to start bringing guns to the game. ;)
I'm sure the victims in Paris thought the same thing
Why should they screen anyone there,they have strict gun laws,no ones alowed to own guns there. Oh wait. :yike:
Exactly!.
Do you really trust the screening process at the stadiums?, I guarantee they are missing more then TSA.
Post by: Special T on December 14, 2016, 11:28:13 PM
I have accidentally carried a lot of amunition on an air plane. A few pistol rounds, some buckshot, a couple rifle rounds... I'm not impressed with the TSA nor am I with the BS security at the Stadiums. The best arguments for allowing it have less to do with the actually event than the before or after in down town.Rhetorical question: was there any screening in place to help prevent the Paris attack?Stadiums are the perfect place for mass casualties
Sounds like a good reason to start allowing 70,000 people to start bringing guns to the game. ;)
I'm sure the victims in Paris thought the same thing
Why should they screen anyone there,they have strict gun laws,no ones alowed to own guns there. Oh wait. :yike:
Exactly!.
Do you really trust the screening process at the stadiums?, I guarantee they are missing more then TSA.
Post by: biggfish on December 15, 2016, 06:12:45 AM
At least CenturyLink does not allow off duty police to carry that I know of, can't speak for other stadiums. All entrants including employees have to pass through metal detectors to enter. Off duty LEO'S are required to surrender their weapons to SPD and are locked into the duty lockers in the police station in the stadium. I worked at the stadium for years as well as others, Key Arena is the only stadium I'm aware of that has lockers available to cpl holders. All the other stadiums I've worked they tell everyone including off duty LEO'S they must take them back to their vehicles.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 walked a mile or more in downtown Seattle on a dark night, to and from your parking spot, to attend an event at CenturyLink?
I use to be a delivery driver in downtown Seattle, I have had a knife pulled on me twice. Pulling my gun out resolved the situation both times. I do not go to the games in Seattle due to the restriction on guns in the stadiums. Don't forget that the NFL does. It even allow off duty LEO to carry at the games and I think that is pathetic.
Post by: Band on December 15, 2016, 07:21:14 AM
How many billions of people have "put their lives on the line" to attend a sporting event in the U.S. over the years without, correct me if I am wrong, a single one of them being shot inside the stadium where screening takes place to prevent weapons?Rhetorical question: was there any screening in place to help prevent the Paris attack?Stadiums are the perfect place for mass casualties
Sounds like a good reason to start allowing 70,000 people to start bringing guns to the game. ;)
I'm sure the victims in Paris thought the same thing
Why should they screen anyone there,they have strict gun laws,no ones alowed to own guns there. Oh wait. :yike:
Exactly!.
Do you really trust the screening process at the stadiums?, I guarantee they are missing more then TSA.
Get back to me when that changes and we'll resume the discussion.
Until then, some of you are wanting to make "mass casualties" a near certain reality by introducing guns where guns are currently not allowed and nobody has ever been shot.
Sometimes I think its important to weigh evidence and forethought against learned reaction when making up one's mind about an issue. Maybe this is one of those times.
Post by: smittyJ on December 15, 2016, 07:40:09 AM
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 walked a mile or more in downtown Seattle on a dark night, to and from your parking spot, to attend an event at CenturyLink?
Or ridden the train or bus to the stadium? As far as drinking goes, you are allowed in a restaurant or bar that has an under 21 section but does not say you can't drink although it is a bad idea!
I don't go anywhere I can't carry!!
Post by: smittyJ on December 15, 2016, 07:48:17 AM
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? :dunno:
LOL, I'm sure they check everyone who has access to the stadium 24/7/365. Smuggling guns in would be a snap for a vendor or employee.
The last two games I went to, Hawks & Mariners, only bags and purses were checked, not people.
Post by: haugenna on December 15, 2016, 07:52:29 AM
Couldn't have said it any better.How many billions of people have "put their lives on the line" to attend a sporting event in the U.S. over the years without, correct me if I am wrong, a single one of them being shot inside the stadium where screening takes place to prevent weapons?Rhetorical question: was there any screening in place to help prevent the Paris attack?Stadiums are the perfect place for mass casualties
Sounds like a good reason to start allowing 70,000 people to start bringing guns to the game. ;)
I'm sure the victims in Paris thought the same thing
Why should they screen anyone there,they have strict gun laws,no ones alowed to own guns there. Oh wait. :yike:
Exactly!.
Do you really trust the screening process at the stadiums?, I guarantee they are missing more then TSA.
Get back to me when that changes and we'll resume the discussion.
Until then, some of you are wanting to make "mass casualties" a near certain reality by introducing guns where guns are currently not allowed and nobody has ever been shot.
Sometimes I think its important to weigh evidence and forethought against learned reaction when making up one's mind about an issue. Maybe this is one of those times.
Post by: smittyJ on December 15, 2016, 08:08:50 AM
I don't know what the big deal is on here. Laws do not pertain to criminals, never have, never will.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.
So you'd feel more comfortable knowing there's no one in the area that could legally have a gun to try and stop someone who want to kill as many people as they can! So you'd cower down and hope they would let you live....not me,if I wasn't carrying,which won't happen.,I'd be wishing someone else was. I guess that's why the world has sheeple
I think you're missing my point. The concern I have is you've got the bad guy and you've got some amateur hour gun owner start shooting and bullets are flying everywhere. Random casualties in that situation are pretty much guaranteed to happen in those crowds. As of now, if you go to Safeco field, you get wanded or through the metal detector. You have a gun. You can't go in with the gun. Now we have a new law that says you can. Some nutcase with a CWP now walks into Safeco field with his now legal gun and decides to shoot up the place. They let him in with it because it was legal. Obviously someone could sneak a gun in probably, but now it's pretty much legal to walk in with one as long as you have a CWP.
I can't tell you the last time I went to a mall. I might go to 1 game at a big stadium per year....maybe... I don't like crowds. With all the crap going on in the world, I'd much rather stay out of the city and the malls, etc. I like to stay in my small town. Friday night lights and all. You know. I am a gun owner, handgun owner, I carry at times, I'm not anti-carry or anything like that.
How many rounds are shot at a bad guy until the threat is done by LEO's ? 10, 20, 64 and how many rounds fly around not hitting the target ?
I guess I feel like if it's legal to have guns in the stadiums, there's more potential for bad stuff to happen, thus increasing the odds of more random bullets flying around. I don't believe that you or I or most people posting in this thread would be able to handle an active shooter situation any better than a cop. Sorry. I just don't.
Maybe I'm wrong, but if it suddenly becomes legal to bring them in, there's more potential for some nutcase jackwagon to bring one in.
That is the same argument anti-gunners use for their fight against concealed carry but statistics show just the reverse!
Post by: Bob33 on December 15, 2016, 08:15:47 AM
For the last five months, we’ve been compiling data from police departments across the country to track arrests in and around NFL stadiums. Here's what the data tells us. (Thomas Johnson, Dani Johnson/The Washington Post)
Earlier this month, Joe Bauer and his wife, Sharon, went to M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore to watch the Ravens play the Oakland Raiders. During the second half, they were walking on an exit ramp when, according to a Baltimore police report, an argument turned into a full-blown altercation; a Raiders fan punched Bauer, a 55-year-old Ravens season ticket holder, and Bauer fell and hit his head.
Bauer suffered a brain injury and was initially given a 30 percent chance to survive. Though he has since improved, a relative said, his family is uncertain he ever will be the same.
While the National Football League is more popular than ever, expected this year to set a record by surpassing $13 billion in revenue, it faces potent threats to its dominance over the American sports landscape: declining television ratings, an inconsistent response to incidents of domestic abuse involving players and continuing worries about player safety. But an equally alarming threat is unruly fan behavior in and around NFL stadiums. It has some in the league concerned that it is driving fans to stay away.
“If you are concerned about bringing your family to a game, then that is an issue,” said Amy Trask, a former executive with the Raiders who has served on the NFL’s security committee. “It’s not just an issue for one team; it’s an issue for all 32 teams. The teams know this. The league knows this.”
The NFL has made significant efforts in recent years to improve the climate inside its stadiums by identifying trouble spots and providing its franchises with guidelines for creating a friendlier atmosphere. But it is having only limited success and may be pushing the problem of unsavory fan behavior from stadiums to the parking lots.
Although arrest totals fluctuate year to year, they have trended slightly upward on a per-game basis since 2011, according to a Washington Post examination of police data from the past five seasons. Last year, 6.34 arrests per game were reported league-wide during the 17 weeks of the regular season. In the 10th week of the season, 126 arrests were made — the second-highest total during the five-year period. That was the most since 129 arrests were made in Week 14 of 2012.
The data assembled by The Post provides a snapshot of the factors the NFL and local law enforcement see as bellwethers for fan trouble. Division contests and night games result in considerably more fan arrests, according to records collected from city, county and state police jurisdictions that oversee security at NFL stadiums. The later the kickoff, the greater the likelihood of arrests, the data shows. Of the 15 games the past five seasons with the most arrests, a combined 705, nine of those contests began at 4 p.m. or later.
When division games are played at night, arrests are twice as high as early-afternoon non-division contests; the league and its network broadcast partners often schedule these division rivalry games in prime time.
If the home team loses, no matter the opponent or scheduled kickoff time, arrests increase. The closer the loss, the more arrests tend to rise.
The Post used public records laws to obtain data from 29 of the 31 jurisdictions with a stadium (the New York Giants and New York Jets share MetLife Stadium in New Jersey). Authorities in Cleveland and New Orleans did not provide documents despite repeated requests. To provide further context, The Post visited stadiums and interviewed more than two dozen NFL and law enforcement officials.
Officials at NFL headquarters dispute that games are unsafe or any perception that stadiums are anything but family-friendly. Behind the scenes, however, the league puts a high priority on controlling fan behavior and identifying possible trouble spots. Certain venues seem to be hotbeds for police activity, particularly in parking lots, where oversight is not regulated by the league office and where alcohol consumption goes largely unmonitored.
The data shows per-game arrests over the past five seasons were highest at San Diego’s Qualcomm Stadium, where police instituted stricter policies in 2013 following a violent parking lot brawl that involved thrown glass bottles. Following San Diego, where police made 24.58 arrests per game between 2011 and 2015, were the stadiums in New York (21.96 arrests per game), Oakland (17.78) and Pittsburgh (16.75). The NFL sees high arrest numbers at its stadiums in San Diego, New York and Pittsburgh as byproducts of those franchises’ zero-tolerance policies; Oakland, though, is continually on the league's radar, along with San Francisco, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Philadelphia.
But the potential for trouble is hardly confined to those sites. Last October, a man was shot outside a Dallas Cowboys game at A&T Stadium and later died. A year earlier, a man at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, Calif., home of the 49ers, was beaten so badly, his attorney said, the man now suffers from permanent seizure activity. In 2013, a 30-year-old man was beaten to death in the parking lot at Kansas City’s Arrowhead Stadium.
Last November, Matthew Davis attended a Raiders game in Oakland with his girlfriend and two family members. On their way out, a Raiders fan approached Davis from behind and punched him so hard he would require a CT scan. The reason: Davis was wearing a Jets jersey.
“A jungle,” said Davis, 30, who said he was unlikely to return to Oakland Coliseum. “People are just in your ear; you’re just being harassed the whole time.”
[Britain warms to the NFL, but will a franchise follow?]
Those are just among the most high-profile incidents in recent years. Not all incidents lead to arrests, and much more common are verbal and physical jousting among fans, drunkenness and a general climate of boorishness.
The league’s stadiums in Seattle, Chicago, Tampa and Houston tallied the fewest arrests the past five seasons, averaging one arrest or fewer per game. FedEx Field in Landover, which averages about 2.7 arrests at each Redskins game, ranked in the middle; M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore, where arrests average 1.5 per game, is in the bottom half, according to data compiled by The Post.
Three jurisdictions — Atlanta, Detroit and Minneapolis — provided arrests only for inside the stadiums. But incidents still happen at those venues, which underscores the problem as those in and around the league see it: Teams and law enforcement are largely uncertain when or where trouble might arise, often leading to a reactive approach.
“Whatever has to be done will be done,” Ravens Coach John Harbaugh told reporters after the incident in Baltimore this month. “We’re a family. It’s a family atmosphere.”
In 2008, when Jeffrey Miller traveled to Oakland to attend his first Monday night game as the NFL’s new head of security, he saw something familiar — though not at all family-friendly.
“I’ve been in actual prison riots,” said Miller, a former Pennsylvania state police commissioner who in the spring stepped down after eight years in the NFL league office to take a job with a private security firm in California. He was replaced in August by former Washington police chief Cathy L. Lanier. “I looked around me, and I saw so many people getting tased by police right outside the venue, it was unbelievable.
“I looked around and said: We have got to change this environment.”
Former Washington police chief Cathy Lanier took over as head of security for the NFL in August. Her predecessor, Jeffrey Miller, said he “saw so many people getting tased by police right outside the venue, it was unbelievable.” (Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post)
Trouble in the parking lots
In Miller’s first months on the job, he visited stadiums and sometimes couldn’t believe what he saw, most notably in the parking lots outside. He watched a fan punch a police officer at one facility, and at another tailgaters walked past portable toilets to relieve themselves in the woods.
Some fans, already visibly drunk upon arrival, were welcomed onto stadium property; there, they went on performing keg stands and draining shots from bowling balls. Many staggered into the stadium for the game.
“Tailgating has changed in our lifetimes,” said Lou Marciani, the director of the University of Southern Mississippi’s National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security. “They open up so early, and by the time the game starts, [fans] are wiped out.”
Each year, the NFL invites four officials from each team, often including franchise owners, to attend the league’s security training seminar. Miller distributed his annual report of how each team handled security, issuing “grades” for each organization: a “1” was the best score, and a “4” amounted to a failing grade.
There was some fluctuation, but year after year, the same teams seemed to over- and underachieve. In an interview, Miller wouldn’t reveal how he graded teams, but one individual who saw the reports said New England, Arizona, New York and Carolina consistently received top marks; Buffalo, Cincinnati, Oakland and San Francisco often were among the teams needing improvement.
[Archives: How Roger Goodell became the most powerful man in U.S. sports]
The NFL has instituted a league-wide “code of conduct” and a list of “best practices” for stadium security over the past eight years. It also has established text messaging lines for fans to anonymously report bad behavior, leading to fewer incidents inside stadiums. Facilities paid closer attention at entry gates to inebriated fans, sometimes turning them away, and many teams instituted a zero-tolerance policy for smoking, profanity or fighting. If someone is ejected, he or she is barred from buying tickets — at least through league-approved channels — until they pass a $250 conduct exam and petition the team, in writing, for permission for return.
The NFL says arrests inside stadiums decreased by 32 percent from 2014 to 2015 and that fan ejections also were down. But fan behavior in parking lots, it acknowledges, is another matter. The NFL said there were nearly 500 arrests in stadium lots last season, a 6 percent increase over 2014. For the most part, data collected by The Post did not differentiate between arrests made inside and outside stadiums.
“We see very few incidents, but one incident is too much,” said Brian McCarthy, a spokesman in the NFL league office. “We do recognize that, and it’s something we take very seriously.”
The NFL does not regulate when parking lots open and close, and the ability to cut loose before games is part of the appeal for many fans. Several teams allow cars through gates as early as five hours before kickoff; some franchises allow tailgaters to spend all day in the lots, regardless of whether they hold game tickets. Most lots at FedEx Field open four hours before kickoff, though its “Red Zone” tailgating lot opens five hours prior.
“You’ve created this multi-acre bar, but you don’t have any real bouncers out there,” said William Carr, a Kansas City-area attorney who in July filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against the Chiefs.
Three years ago, 30-year-old Kyle Van Winkle attended a game with a group before leaving Arrowhead Stadium. He wandered into the parking lot and climbed into the wrong vehicle. Carr, who in his complaint cited at least 60 violent incidents on stadium property between 2000 and 2013, said a group of tailgaters — none of whom possessed game tickets, he said — assaulted Van Winkle. Van Winkle was knocked unconscious and propped up on a nearby bus; a short time later he was found not breathing and was pronounced dead at a hospital.
The lawsuit alleges the Chiefs fostered a party atmosphere without adequate security; Carr has alleged that during the altercation, onlookers went looking for help but couldn’t locate security. In an answer filed in August, the Chiefs denied responsibility.
Absence of a clear pattern
As an early December weekend began in 2014, one matchup on the schedule had the NFL on high alert. All 32 teams were playing in Week 14 of the season, though only two of the matchups were division games.
A man at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego was arrested for urinating or defecating in public, a Cincinnati law officer was assaulted at Paul Brown Stadium, and a man at Lambeau Field in Green Bay was arrested and found to have a blood alcohol content of 0.307, a level so high it can be fatal. Washington’s FedEx Field had two arrests for disorderly conduct and another for theft.
But another scheduled contest had caused concern within the NFL for months: San Francisco at Oakland. The previous time the two Bay Area teams met, a 2011 preseason game across the bay at Candlestick Park, there had been so much violence that the league indefinitely suspended the annual exhibition between the rival franchises. A man had been beaten in the parking lot until he was unconscious, and a friend trying to rescue him was shot four times. Multiple brawls broke out inside the stadium and across its sprawling property.
“It’s rough out there,” said Bill Smith, a Bay Area attorney who has sued the 49ers on behalf of the man who suffered a brain injury in an assault at Levi’s Stadium in 2014. “It’s alcohol and bravado, and when you add gang activity, which we have, it’s a deadly combination.”
[Archives: Here are the NFL owners that wield the most influence]
A troubling reality for the NFL, according to arrest data provided to The Post, is that it is difficult to know when and where trouble will occur. Week 10 last year was the worst week of the 2015 season, in which an average of 9.7 arrests were made at stadiums across the NFL. One week later was the best, recording an average of 2.5 arrests. The absence of a clear pattern makes prevention largely a guessing game.
But for the 49ers-Raiders game in December 2014, the league tried to be proactive. Miller had warned months earlier that the league’s schedule makers could not, under any circumstances, allow the teams to play in a late afternoon or night game. He sent his strategic security director and two more league representatives to the West Coast and urged the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, which shares security responsibilities with the City of Oakland, to increase its presence. That would include officers on motorcycles and in golf carts, perched in lookout towers and dressed in 49ers and Raiders jerseys. Though the league typically mandates the end of alcohol sales at the conclusion of the third quarter, NFL security considered advising the Raiders to end alcohol sales at halftime. Kickoff was scheduled for 1:25 p.m. local time.
“They were not unprepared,” Miller said in a telephone interview, but no matter the planning and reinforcements, police were nonetheless called to investigate 49 incidents — the fifth-highest total in any regular season NFL game between 2011 and 2015.
A moment after Oakland quarterback Derek Carr passed for a touchdown, a woman in the upper deck stood to cheer. A man sitting behind her, a police report described, shoved her so hard she flipped over the next row, landing face-first on a seat and opening a five-inch cut on her forehead. When the woman’s boyfriend turned, the man behind him shrugged: “Sorry, bro,” he said.
[Archives: Health and safety in the NFL]
Shortly after the game, a 24-13 Raiders victory, a man was beaten in the parking lot, left bleeding from the head and “gravely disabled” from his injuries, a police report said. Another man entered the property carrying brass knuckles, a narcotics pouch went missing from a first-aid station, one BMW with a custom Raiders paint job was intentionally scratched, and another vehicle had a window broken.
On this day, police recorded 21 cases of disorderly conduct and at least 25 people ended their game day in the nearby Santa Rita jail.
Who’s responsible for safety?
A significant problem, particularly in some locations, is that there is disagreement among the league, teams and local enforcement on who is ultimately responsible for fan safety.
Casey Nice, an assistant sheriff in California’s Alameda County, is in charge of overseeing the game-day security operation at all Raiders games at Oakland Coliseum. He said he was surprised the Coliseum ranked near the top in terms of arrests, insisting security is more of an emphasis at the stadium than it was years ago and that more arrests could reflect the team’s zero-tolerance policy.
He also defended Raiders fans and believes their reputation as aggressive is largely outdated. That conflicts with what police data suggests: The Raiders tend to increase arrests at stadiums wherever they play; at the average away game for Oakland, arrests go up by 70 percent, according to The Post’s survey, among the highest in the league for road teams. Arrests also tend to go up when the Pittsburgh Steelers, Philadelphia Eagles and San Francisco 49ers play road games, according to the data.
Though Nice would not reveal how many officers are staffed for each scheduled Raiders game — teams’ security plans are not typically made public — he said it’s common to enlist more personnel for potentially volatile contests, such as division contests or night games.
Nice said he’s in occasional contact with the NFL league office, and he attends the league’s security seminar each year. But he has not received a list of the NFL’s “best practices,” though Nice said that’s just as well.
He believes local officials are better equipped to understand the needs of each NFL stadium than someone 3,000 miles away in the league office, which he said is prone to overreaction.
About this study
The Washington Post submitted public records requests to police departments that oversee security at each NFL stadium. Twenty-nine of the 31 jurisdictions provided at least partial data, though reporting methods differed from agency to agency; Cleveland and New Orleans did not submit data. Certain data were omitted if found to be incomplete or unreliable. Among those jurisdictions sending partial arrest figures for home games between 2011 and 2015 were Buffalo, Miami and Oakland. St. Louis provided only year-by-year arrest data, rather than game-by-game numbers. Detroit, Minneapolis and Atlanta did not provide data for arrests that took place in stadium parking lots.
View the full data.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/a-quietly-escalating-issue-for-nfl-fan-violence-and-how-to-contain-it/2016/10/28/4ec37964-9470-11e6-bb29-bf2701dbe0a3_story.html?utm_term=.374460ed34c4
Post by: biggfish on December 15, 2016, 09:17:17 AM
When's the last time you were at a game, Seahawks went to metal detectors during the pre season of 2012 and for the 5 years prior had full body pat downs. The Mariners have been using walk through body scanners for three years now CenturyLink had the same ones implemented prior to the start of soccer season this year. Not saying I agree or disagree with this becoming law, but just throwing out there CenturyLink field is the only stadium to receive 100% security rating for the NFL.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? :dunno:
LOL, I'm sure they check everyone who has access to the stadium 24/7/365. Smuggling guns in would be a snap for a vendor or employee.
The last two games I went to, Hawks & Mariners, only bags and purses were checked, not people.
Post by: haugenna on December 15, 2016, 09:20:28 AM
Wait.....are we talking about an active shooter terrorist or are we talking about two testosterone enraged adults wanting to relive their youth while drunk starting a fist fight and one person getting the better of the other.
Cooler heads prevail and walking away from a potential altercation will either save your life or save your life savings and freedom.
Add a gun to that situation and now you have innocent bystanders being shot during two idiots fighting. I tell my kids this all the time, it takes two people to have an argument.
The leagues stadiums in Seattle, Chicago, Tampa and Houston tallied the fewest arrests the past five seasons, averaging one arrest or fewer per game.
Post by: smittyJ on December 17, 2016, 07:42:26 AM
When's the last time you were at a game, Seahawks went to metal detectors during the pre season of 2012 and for the 5 years prior had full body pat downs. The Mariners have been using walk through body scanners for three years now CenturyLink had the same ones implemented prior to the start of soccer season this year. Not saying I agree or disagree with this becoming law, but just throwing out there CenturyLink field is the only stadium to receive 100% security rating for the NFL.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? :dunno:
LOL, I'm sure they check everyone who has access to the stadium 24/7/365. Smuggling guns in would be a snap for a vendor or employee.
The last two games I went to, Hawks & Mariners, only bags and purses were checked, not people.
2012 on the Clink, same for the Mariners. The Clink was just checking bags at the gate I went through. If they had scanners didn't see any. I have never gone back so no idea what the have lately. I just stay out of Seattle, I grew up in north Seattle, just not the same now!
Post by: Knocker of rocks on December 17, 2016, 08:07:50 AM
Quote
LOL, I'm sure they check everyone who has access to the stadium 24/7/365. Smuggling guns in would be a snap for a vendor or employee.
Employees are checked, at least the ones I know. I don't know about the press, players or management. And all the bread, beans and TV cameras are not x-rayed or disassembled.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 17, 2016, 08:49:02 AM
Post by: biggfish on December 18, 2016, 04:37:12 PM
I can tell you that all people entering the facility are checked with the same screening process only exclusion is uniformed SPD. The media comes through security and we inspect all equipment, camera and other gear gets broken down.QuoteLOL, I'm sure they check everyone who has access to the stadium 24/7/365. Smuggling guns in would be a snap for a vendor or employee.
Employees are checked, at least the ones I know. I don't know about the press, players or management. And all the bread, beans and TV cameras are not x-rayed or disassembled.
Post by: haugenna on December 19, 2016, 10:46:17 PM
Can you imagine this situation if they were armed?
Post by: csaaphill on December 19, 2016, 10:57:30 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on December 20, 2016, 09:15:12 AM
http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/other/violent-mass-brawl-breaks-out-at-nfl-raiders-vs-chiefs-game/vi-AAlw90O
Can you imagine this situation if they were armed?
Wow, a person could get sucked into hours of watching that stuff on youtube.
Some points:
1) The Raiders, Chiefs and '49'ers sure seem over-represented.
2) I watched a couple of Arrowhead brawls on Youtube, and it takes forever for security and the police to show up, and their response is rather small. At least on the 100 level of Century-Link, the respose is large and they're there almost immediately.
My points have nothing to do with the larger topic of this thread.