It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Guns or No Guns?? Your views.

page: 13
19
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Here is one from 1960!

June 1960: Sixteen-year-old John Rubel was with his grandmother in the living quarters over her Chicago tavern when they heard glass break in a window below. John raced downstairs, grabbed the cal .32 revolver behind the bar, and pointed it at a man climbing into the window. "You're too young to use that gun," said the burglar, and John fired, the burglar tumbling out the window and fleeing the scene. Police soon arrested a suspect with a bullet wound in his shoulder. (Chicago Daily Tribune, Chicago IL)




posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Here is another viewpoint...

Is it considered a shooting/massacre if the shooter is thwarted by an armed citizen early on?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Mind if I help?

6/2/2010

Mom uses gun to prevent rape of daughter


A Cape Girardeau mother with a gun is being credited with stopping the attempted rape of her daughter.

The Southeast Missourian reports that 51-year-old Craig Kizer faces a variety of charges, including attempted rape, armed criminal action and burglary. He has no known address and did not have an attorney.

Police say Kizer had been working on the family's home as part of a renovation project, but was not staying there. The teen was in bed around 5:30 a.m. Sunday when Kizer came into her room with a knife and climbed on top of her.

When he set the knife down on the bed, the teen grabbed it and screamed.

The girl's mother came into the room with a gun, pointed it at the suspect and ordered him out of the house. Police later arrested him.

www.stltoday.com...



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scarcer
Here is another viewpoint...

Is it considered a shooting/massacre if the shooter is thwarted by an armed citizen early on?
No, I think it would not be.

Here is one from my home state:

*When he was awakened by his home security system, NRA Endowment member Steve Bason prepared for the worst—he got his Benelli M1 12-ga. shotgun, while his wife, Beth, an NRA Life member, grabbed her Glock 9 mm pistol. "At first we figured it was just another false alarm," Bason told the editor of the "Armed Citizen." "Then a light came on in our barn and I thought, 'My goodness, this is real!'" Police say the couple cautiously approached the barn. They peered inside and found a man standing next to Bason's truck with the door open. "There was some yelling and we probably said some words that aren't fit for print," Bason recalled. The suspect quickly found himself staring down the barrels of two different guns and waited patiently for police. (The Express, Lock Haven, PA, 02/02/10)

In this case, NO ONE dies.

Who knows what may have been prevented.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Scarcer
 


I agree, and I would have no wish to take away your rights, or those of any other US citizen. I know there is an anti gun lobby in the USA, but being anti-gun in the UK does not automatically mean one is on the same side.

As far as my (little) understanding has it, the USA never had a period between the 'wild west' and today where there was no ownership of guns or no need for it.

In the remoter parts of developing America, well into the 20th century at least, you could be miles away from any sort of law and order and there was always the possibility of armed bandits turning up. As I see it, this, or even the fear of it, has never gone away. Also the ready availability of guns means that criminals are more likely to be armed than not.

Against this guns are not 'mysterious' to Americans and most have the common sense to use them properly and are familiar with them and what they are for.

Thats why I say the situation there is utterly different and it is not possible to transpose the 2nd amendment and what it enshrines across to the UK, anymore than you can make a bishop follow the Koran.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Wheelchair bound veteran holds off 3 home intruders


A disabled former US Marine, who uses a wheelchair, reportedly used his handgun to fend off a trio of early-morning home invaders.

Police say that the former-Marine was in his secluded West Pike Run Township, PA home at 2am when his dog began to bark. Moments later, three home invaders reportedly rushed into the house from different directions, prompting the homeowner to grab his .45 caliber pistol and fire in self defense. Upon being fired at, all three home invaders are said to have fled, leaving the former Marine unharmed. Police are reportedly seeking the three suspects responsible for this crime.
www.examiner.com...



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
*The incessant ringing of her doorbell woke a woman from her sleep. She looked through the front door peephole and saw someone in a hooded sweatshirt outside continuing to ring the bell. Police say the woman ran to the bedroom, got her handgun and dialed 9-1-1. As she returned to the front door, a second hooded suspect emerged, sprinted to the door and kicked it. His foot busted a hole in the door, knocking down the woman. She looked through the hole and saw the suspect preparing to run and kick the door again, so she stuck the barrel of her handgun out of the hole and fired two shots. The suspects fled the scene and are being sought by police. (KNXV-TV, Phoenix, AZ, 02/11/10)

How many of these people would be a mess for the CSI teams to investigate and the crime scene cleanup contractors to sanitize if it hadn't been for their firearm?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scarcer
Here is another viewpoint...

Is it considered a shooting/massacre if the shooter is thwarted by an armed citizen early on?


Well, what I was trying to find were similar circumstances. Like say the person had killed, or even shot at, two or three people, in different locations if possible but not absolutely necessary, that can be shown to be someone just going bonkers and not as a consequence of a robbery or some other crime with a specific motive. So that its more 'like for like'

[edit on 4-6-2010 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


But what are these actually proving in relation to this discussion?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   
I suppose the point has been made, but no reason not to be incessant.

The Armed Citizen Extra
(The following account did not appear in the print version of American Rifleman.)

A Florida man awoke late one night to the sound of robbers barging into his home. When he confronted the two men, they demanded money. He gave it to them, but also grabbed his shotgun as the robbers fled. Gunfire was exchanged in the street, and one suspect ran off into nearby woods, while the other jumped into a vehicle and sped away. Both men were later taken into custody. The homeowner suffered no injuries. (Hometown News, Daytona Beach, FL, 9/18/2009)



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   
This is a famous massacre in a "gun free" zone. The woman testifying had left her handgun in her car because the restaurant had a "no guns allowed" approach to business.

Her ability to stop the assault or just to meet the assault with equal force as well as the ability of untold others who had also not brought their guns in due to the rule was sitting out in the car while people died.




On October 16, 1991, Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby's Cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, yelled "This is what Bell County has done to me!", then opened fire on the restaurant's patrons and staff with a Glock 17 pistol and later a Ruger P89. About 80 people were in the restaurant at the time. He stalked, shot, and killed 23 people and wounded another 20 before committing suicide. During the shooting, he approached Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby's Cafeteria that day, but had left it in her vehicle due to the laws in force at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms. According to her later testimony in favor of Missouri's HB-1720 bill[1] and in general, after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse, but "a hundred feet away in [her] car", her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him, only to be gunned down; a short time later, her mother was also shot and killed. (Hupp later expressed regret for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car, rather than keeping it on her person. One patron, Tommy Vaughn, threw himself through a plate-glass window to allow others to escape. Hennard allowed a mother and her four-year-old child to leave. He reloaded several times and still had ammunition remaining when he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head after being cornered and wounded by police.


[edit on 4-6-2010 by thisguyrighthere]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 
That armed citizens CAN prevent crimes!

What did your list prove?

That the absence of an armed citizen does not prevent a massacre?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by waynos
 
That armed citizens CAN prevent crimes!

What did your list prove?

That the absence of an armed citizen does not prevent a massacre?


Of course they can, was that question ever asked? Not by me.

I think you have completely missed every single thing I tried to say. Oh well.



So far (thank you to the diligence of thisguyrighthere) there seems to be one relevant incident, that occurred 19 years ago.

I have no quarrel with any of the incidents you have post to (spammed?) the thread. I think the actual events posted here by yourself and others supports the argument I have put forward *as it relates to the UK* and is in no way a reflection on one side being 'better' then the other.

Thank you



[edit on 4-6-2010 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   
He could have been planning to rape her, who knows?

From the Armed Citizen Archive
April 1978: Paul Tornabene, of Buffalo N.Y., was driving home when he saw a woman being mugged at knifepoint. Tornabene responded to the woman’s cry for help, stopped his car, and held a gun on her assailant until police arrived. The man was arrested on a first degree robbery charge. Of Tornabene, one officer said, “I think the guy should get a merit badge. People are so reluctant to get involved these days, and this guy really went out of his way to help the woman and police…” (The Courier Express, Buffalo, New York)



[edit on 4-6-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by waynos
 
That armed citizens CAN prevent crimes!

What did your list prove?

That the absence of an armed citizen does not prevent a massacre?


Of course they can, was that question ever asked? Not by me.

I think you have completely missed every single thing I tried to say. Oh well.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

So far (thank you to the diligence of thisguyrighthere) there seems to be one relevant incident, that occurred 19 years ago.

I have no quarrel with any of the incidents you have post to (spammed?) the thread. I think the actual events posted here by yourself and others supports the argument I have put forward *as it relates to the UK* and is in no way a reflection on one side being 'better' then the other.

Thank you

[edit on 4-6-2010 by waynos]
Oh, you are quite welcome.

These posts have been relevant to the discussion of the OP, which you may have read, "Guns or no guns, your views"!

These stories are credited to their original source. What is the problem?
If you agree with the premise as your last post says you do, then you should have no reason to attack them.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   
This is the incident I referred to a couple of pages ago which occurred at the University of Texas in 1966:

Charles Whitman

The slaughter wasnt prevented but the shooter was kept suppressed and the actions of armed citizens may have greatly reduced the body count:


Ramiro Martinez, an officer who confronted Whitman, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit.[20]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


But I haven't attacked them, at least I don't think I have?

The OP, as he stated, was inspired to start this thread by the Cumbria shootings and, although the thread was opened for a wider discussion about gun ownership I did state in my opening sentence my own interest in the discussion


My interest in this discussion was sparked by an early comment that if UK citizens were armed then this tragedy could have been ended sooner and that this proved that the UK was wrong to ban general gun ownership.


This was a discussion brought here from the breaking news thread as that was not an appropriate place for it.

Now, of course I may have read it wrong, but you seemed to be one of those advocating that argument and saying we were, 'sheep' was it? Something like that anyway.

I hope I have made it clear that I believe that what is right for one nation is not automatically right for another, do we agree on that?

I think I made my views on American gun ownership clear on a previous post.

Anyhow, I put my view forward, its just for everyone else to agree or disagree, as always. Cheers.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
My interest in this discussion was sparked by an early comment that if UK citizens were armed then this tragedy could have been ended sooner and that this proved that the UK was wrong to ban general gun ownership.

Leaving aside the plain and simple fact that the UK does not have a widespread gun culture, or the experience and natural restraint that the majority of people raised around guns has, such as in the USA, or indeed any sort of general desire to own guns, I sought to see how true this statement was. How many massacres in the USA were ended by armed citizens?
I got nowhere then, but earlier in this thread someone posted a timeline of US mass shootings from 2005 onwards, and I had the chance to see how this worked in cases in the USA

For example;

12 March 2005, Terry Ratzman killed himself
21 March 2005, Jeffrey Weise killed himself
2 Oct 2006, Charles Carl Roberts IV killed himself
16 April 2007, Seung-Hui Cho killed himself
5 Dec 2007, Robert Hawkins killed himself
14 Feb 2008, Steven Kazmierczak killed himself
24 Dec 2008, Bruce Jeffrey Pardo killed himself
10 March 2009, Micheal McLendon killed himself
9 March 2009 Robert Stewart wounded by a police officer, arrested and facing trial
3 April 2009 Jiverly Wong killed himself
4 August 2009, George Sodini killed himself

So, In not one occurence was the incident ended by an armed citizen, rather deflating that argument. And yet, in the USA, people continue to be be robbed, murdered and raped, so that isn't an argument for gun ownership by the masses in the UK either.
See if you can see where I am coming from, since you didn't address the question of "what does the list you posted prove?".

You posted a list of MASSACRES, then state that no armed citizen prevented them.

How many of the stories where an armed citizen kills a nut-job before he hurts someone, or after he hurts one person, are going to make the news the way the stories in your list did?

The answer is of course , zero.

I posit that your list does not take armed citizens into account fully, barely at all in fact.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
A very insightful bumper sticker from the past read:

>When guns are outlawed,only outlaws will have guns.<

I agree with this totally,just imagine how much more thought a robber would give regarding robbing someone,if he KNEW that many may have guns to bring to bear on him if he did?.

I think possession of weapons is an issue of equality,and rights are having the option to decide if you would like to carry a weapon,or not.

If you take away people's ability to defend themselves,there are always people out there who would take advantage of this,and an aggressor knowing one is probably not going to be armed causes him to be a tad more cavalier in his actions.

I really wonder who is trying to make themselves feel more safe sometimes,since the government are the ones who write the laws making possession of weapons illegal,yet they are also the ones who are out to steal the people's wealth.

Something is wrong here,if you don't see it you have to be a sheep.

Weapons turn the sheep into a wolf,or just a sheep that can defend itself.

Can't have a sheep who refuses to be fleeced being able to defend itself,can we?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 
I may have been seeing the Brits as a pacified(as far as your relationship to your government goes) mass at the beginning of the discussion.

I have paid attention, however, and through the posts of blupblup, esan and yourself, I have learned more about the differences in our cultures. I do not at this point view you as sheep,

and I regret making that reference before.

Please accept my apology for that, to all Brits in the discussion!
Thanks for showing me the differences and helping me LEARN!



ETA: I missed freeborn as a poster that has taught me a few things over the past day and a half.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by butcherguy]



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join