Hero Who Stopped Texas Gunman: I Couldn’t Have Stopped Him Without My AR-15

What does this have to do with rational reform of gun laws that could have very likely prevented the shooter from buying his guns and *not* prevented the hero (which he most definitely is) from buying his?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: djz3ro

Lets look at the title of this discussion another way "Killer who shot up Taxes Chuech: I Couldn’t Have Done it Without My AR-15"

Again, intent...

the kid that shot worshippers in a church in Virginia did it with a pistol. Same with Virginia Tech massacre (two handguns) the recent 'terror' attack in NY was with a truck.

Murderous intent will find a way.

I understand that but easy access to guns means that people can kill their biddy during a heated argument much easier in the USA than the UK, then, calm down and realise their actions. Sure three are bare hands, knives, swords and an arsenal of melee or non licenced projectile weapons here but that's too messy and a bit more difficult to kill with. Sure it happen but, as many have pointed out before, when that happens laws are checked and changed accordingly, mich like the gun laws after something like this, no, hang on....

originally posted by: jacquesdarippa
a reply to: GuidedKill

Umm read the news much? How many days does America go without someone being killed by a gun used by another? In fact how many gun deaths happen daily?

Hilarious! You depend on the news to tell you every time a gun is used successfully for self defense??

You don't even Deserve a response...i cant even Say what you deserve for your unquestioning loyalty to "the news". I can tell you what you will get though... A brain full of mush that is incapable of independant thought.

You dont know what to think about something until you watch the news and your Masters Tell You What To Think...

You couldn't even be bothered to READ the op before posting.... Thats how worthless your opinion is. If you Had read it, you would have known that the issue of the Almighty News Gods of yours was mentioned and discussed...

If they covered all self defense stories, then people like You would know the truth. They dont Want you to know the truth. They Like that you go around making a fool of yourself saying things like "um, don't you watch the news?" as if thats a valid argument...

Do you believe the "news" reports everything that happens? No. TV airtime is too valuable. Its run Just Like any business...they air what they believe will increasand sustain the highest ratings.

But before they can do Anything, they first have to work with what the owners and advertisers will be ok with.

As the narrative has been going the guy shot a gap in the shooters body armor, so unless that’s changed then he didn’t need his AR that day.

originally posted by: eNumbra
As the narrative has been going the guy shot a gap in the shooters body armor, so unless that’s changed then he didn’t need his AR that day.

Did it say how many shots he fired to make that shot?

Besides, i think he was also talking about having the confidence to take on the shooter. If he had run out of his home with his pistol and saw what he saw, his next move if hes smart is to run for cover till the police show up.

Not to mention accuracy. You're saying it would've been just as easy without his rifle?

All you are doing is showing you know NOTHING about guns. Perhaps it is best that one does not speak in such an authoritative manner about that which he knows Literally ALMOST NOTHING except what the news tells you.

One Day of shooting would have educated you enough so that you wouldn't have made a fool of yourself here today.

No wonder you people are so afraid. It is natural to fear the Unknown.

originally posted by: redtic
What does this have to do with rational reform of gun laws that could have very likely prevented the shooter from buying his guns and *not* prevented the hero (which he most definitely is) from buying his?

Sorry im not fully caught up on the case...
What specific law would have prevented this shooter from buying a gun?

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: djz3ro

Lets look at the title of this discussion another way "Killer who shot up Taxes Chuech: I Couldn’t Have Done it Without My AR-15"

Again, intent...

the kid that shot worshippers in a church in Virginia did it with a pistol. Same with Virginia Tech massacre (two handguns) the recent 'terror' attack in NY was with a truck.

Murderous intent will find a way.

I understand that but easy access to guns means that people can kill their biddy during a heated argument much easier in the USA than the UK, then, calm down and realise their actions. Sure three are bare hands, knives, swords and an arsenal of melee or non licenced projectile weapons here but that's too messy and a bit more difficult to kill with. Sure it happen but, as many have pointed out before, when that happens laws are checked and changed accordingly, mich like the gun laws after something like this, no, hang on....

Yeah, its tough having to act like an adult and Not suddenly kill our buddy over an argument, but, that's the level of responsibility we in the US believe people should strive for.

You kind of sound like an infant. "Please remove all sharp and dangerous objects from my vicinity because i dont trust myself to not suddenly throw a tantrum and hurt myself or others"
Man, I feel lucky to live somewhere I can be treated like a man. And not an irresponsible toddler.

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: eNumbra
As the narrative has been going the guy shot a gap in the shooters body armor, so unless that’s changed then he didn’t need his AR that day.

Did it say how many shots he fired to make that shot?

Besides, i think he was also talking about having the confidence to take on the shooter. If he had run out of his home with his pistol and saw what he saw, his next move if hes smart is to run for cover till the police show up.

Not to mention accuracy. You're saying it would've been just as easy without his rifle?

All you are doing is showing you know NOTHING about guns. Perhaps it is best that one does not speak in such an authoritative manner about that which he knows Literally ALMOST NOTHING except what the news tells you.

One Day of shooting would have educated you enough so that you wouldn't have made a fool of yourself here today.

No wonder you people are so afraid. It is natural to fear the Unknown.

Lol. Cute.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

well some people dont get things right the first time and despite the founding fathers best efforts
I really dont think they too would like mentally unstable people owning rifles would they !

So wouldnt it be best for everyones sake to amend the constitution and do so to protect life , rather than allow a error of judgement affect everyone for generations to come.

You should be allowed to own guns, and bear arms, but not if you are a known criminal or are mentally unsound.

Why should criminals be allowed to own guns? they have committed crimes , and paid the time, should they legally be allowed to own guns, knowing they have committed crimes in the past ?
Or are they subject to another set of sub laws which allow them to own guns but only under advisement from parole officers etc.

Im not clued up on the gun laws that well in the states.

a reply to: djz3ro

I understand that but easy access to guns means that people can kill their biddy during a heated argument much easier in the USA than the UK

Manchester bombing and London bridge massacre both make that argument pointless.

A gun is easier to get in the US so they massacre with that. In London they used a truck because its easier to get that.

Lets see them make vehicles illegal, especially 'big' ones.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Consider these city's crime is down...

5 American cities that require you pack heat

www.aol.com...

a reply to: 3n19m470

Gee..thx..

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: rickymouse

So what is the point of even having the 2nd amendment, if they can just simply pass laws which contradicts it?

"Shall not be infringed"

Seems pretty clear cut to me...

Shh shh. Don't worry. Your rights will not be infringed. Crazies will always have access to guns, and you will have your shootings daily/weekly.

Shhhh shh. It's ok. (Unless you or your loved ones are the latest victims)

a reply to: eNumbra
He needed the AR-15 to be able to hit the shooter anywhere. With a pistol in that high stress situation he would have been lucky to get any rounds close enough to make the shooter take cover.

For anybody without special training pistols are only good for extremely close contact, like 15 ft or less.

As the narrative has been going the guy shot a gap in the shooters body armor, so unless that’s changed then he didn’t need his AR that day.

Some body armor is easier to defeat with a rifle round versus a pistol round.

It's better to bring a rifle to a rifle fight instead of a pistol. The police figured that out quickly after the North Hollywood shootout (bank robbery) in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997

a reply to: 3n19m470

What specific law would have prevented this shooter from buying a gun?

As I understand what has been reported, had the Air Force done the proper reporting of his conviction for domestic violence (beating his wife and stepchild) that conviction would have shown up when he applied to buy. Since they failed to do so, there seems to be no new laws required, just for federal agencies to follow through and do their jobs.

Seems to me that the Air Force failed twice in this case, failed to jail him for attempted murder of a child (when he fractured his stepchild's skull) and then failing to file the necessary reports to keep him from obtaining firearms. Apparently following the laws of the land just weren't that important to the last administration.

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: eNumbra
He needed the AR-15 to be able to hit the shooter anywhere. With a pistol in that high stress situation he would have been lucky to get any rounds close enough to make the shooter take cover.

For anybody without special training pistols are only good for extremely close contact, like 15 ft or less.

Perhaps, unless the shooter was intent on dying and I believe as evidenced by his running away after being hit, most people will take cover when they realize they’re being fired back at.

My post was mostly just pointing out that technically the statement was false. You’ll note that I made no anti-gun statement, I didn’t suggest the use of a pistol, or anything other than the statement was technically false.

A shotgun loaded with deer slugs would have likely had the same effect in the end.

This wasn’t (and rarely ever is) a gun problem, we need to have a serious discussion about fixing the issues that lead to these incidents,(the AF is being investigated here which is great) but I don’t think topics and stories like this one, specifically designed to stroke the egos of ammosexuals far and wide do our society a favor.

I sense it's true that he very well may have been unable to do what he did without equal firepower, but, when it comes down to it, any projectile can and will kill if it hits the right area with the right set of circumstances. It's true he probably would have been murdered had he tried to put an end to the attack with only a pistol, but would the attacker have been able to carry out the attack so efficiently, read machine gun-like, if those were harder to get your hands on?

I just don't know if there is a solution that will make everyone happy, ever. I know in Canada though, I used to be proud that there were hurdles to becoming armed. Now I resent that I can't feel that I can meet deadly force with deadly force, say when protecting my family from robbers.

Not only that, we goto prison if we dare try self defense.