> It's fear mongering because it hasn't happened and is incredibly unlikely to happen.
Because, why? Again I see no refutement. Just empty words.
Two concealed carry owners shoot each other[0]. Concealed carry almost shoots a police officer[1]. Concealed carry shoots the VICTIM in a robbery[2] during a cross-fire with the robbers.
Again, none of these were actually two conceal carry shooters accidentally shooting eachother because one thought the other was the criminal. How would you like me to refute that? Shall I find an article titled "Two heros accidentally didn't shoot themselves thinking the other was the criminal." Because that's what I would need to find in order to "refute" your rediculous premise.
> Because that's what I would need to find in order to "refute" your rediculous premise.
That's what I want you to refuse, why my premise is "ridiculous." My examples clearly indicate that concealed carriers are prone to these kind of mistakes. I mean for crying out loud a concealed carrier shot the VICTIM in a robbery!
The OP said "Mark my words, one day a mass shooting will occur, someone will pull out their concealed carry, and a second concealed carry person will come around the corner and shoot the first (or the police will)."
That's fear mongering. It's an event that hasn't occurred, but is meant to drive fear into the witless.
All you've proven is that innocent people get caught in the crossfire on occasions. Who's to say the teller wouldn't have been shot anyway? And quite frankly, the only person responsible for that death is the armed robber. Very likely he would be charged with murder even though he didn't shoot the victim. The victim would be alive today if an armed robbery had not taken place. Here's some fear mongering for you, that shooter could himself have been shot if the robber didn't want any witnesses left behind. You don't think that happens?
> And quite frankly, the only person responsible for that death is the armed robber.
You don't think the person that actually shot the teller is the least bit responsible? Most armed robberies result in no deaths. This one resulted in one, and likely resulted in that one BECAUSE some idiot with a hero complex started shooting.
It is very likely had that person not been there the robbers would have got away with the money but everyone would be alive to talk about it.
Concealed carriers are dangerous. They're almost as dangerous as the "bad things" they seek to stop. More guns are more guns. Once a shot is ringing through the air it doesn't care who the good guys or bad guys are, so I'd prefer to be in a situation with less shots in the air regardless of motivations.
Concealed carriers are well intentioned fools. They turn a dangerous situation even more dangerous. Like throwing a match into a gas leak.
Because, why? Again I see no refutement. Just empty words.
Two concealed carry owners shoot each other[0]. Concealed carry almost shoots a police officer[1]. Concealed carry shoots the VICTIM in a robbery[2] during a cross-fire with the robbers.
[0] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/19/1239955/-Two-concea... [1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-crestwood-concealed-ca... [2] http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/05/man-arrested-in-fami...