Armed bystander almost shot hero that disarmed AZ shooter

Originally posted by The_Zomar
He could have shot the innocent, but he didn't. The only thing him having a gun DID do, was secure the safety of everyone in the area in case Jared was able to get the gun back, or had another on him.

No in this case it never. The gun increased the element of risk to the innocent. so no the gun never secured the aftey of everyone in the area....

kx

reply to post by MrWendal

You can not "almost" shoot someone.

yes you can it is basic mathamatics... probability...

kx

1. Was the witness carrying anything when he came out of the Walmart?

2. Why did the witness assume the individual holding the firearm was the assailant when bystanders were wrestling with another individual? What propelled the witness to go for the bystander who was allegedly holding the firearm. What is the name of the individual who was holding the firearm? What type of firearm was it? Has the bystander holding the firearm been interviewed for his side of the story?

3. "Sir, when I came through the door, I had my hand on the butt of my pistol and I clicked the safety off. I was ready to kill him."

Kill who and why? What threatened him to the point that this individual instantly had an urge to kill someone as soon as he stepped outside. Had he noticed the disturbance previously from inside of the Walgreen's? If so, what did he notice? Was the bystander who was holding the gun acting in a threatening manner? Who are these people that said "it's not him". Have they been interviewed? What did they see?


"In a Monday interview, Fox News' Steve Doocy noted that if Zamudio had shot his first target it "would have been a big fat mess."

Yeah...and an alleged six dead and fourteen wounded (child/two Government officials included) in a shooting spree in a politically hot potato state is not already "a big fat mess".

reply to post by purplemer


You are right about that, it is probability mathematics. The probability of a bullet that never leaves a barrel injuring/killing somebody is 0/100 or 0%.

reply to post by Randall07


Ever accidentally driven in to the wrong part of St Louis? The southside of Chicago?

reply to post by purplemer


This guy is an idiot. He shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun. I think we should be allowed to carry them and own them, but this guy wasn't on scene to see the whole story he shouldn't have even considered it. I honestly doubt he even came close, if it says he pulled his gun.. he didn't. He just wants a little limelight.

He is an idiot, because he shouldn't have gone near a congresswoman even with a legally concealed weapon, and he shouldn't be telling this pointless story if he likes carrying his gun around.

He just wanted to sound a little heroic, i doubt his story entirely though.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by purplemer

 

You are right about that, it is probability mathematics. The probability of a bullet that never leaves a barrel injuring/killing somebody is 0/100 or 0%.

Wrong...!!!

this would be refered to as a near miss. it is like driving a car on the wrong side of the road. The fact that you do not have an accident does not make the behavour safe. For every near miss you have driving on the wrong side of the road you increase the chance of being in an accident...

kx

reply to post by purplemer


I mean no insult, but this thread and that interview is completely useless, and I can't believe you would try to spin this into a bad thing, incredible, a good Samaritan rushes over at risk to his own life knowing he would have a better chance at stopping the criminal activity then an unarmed person, and that is the angle you choose, stop being naive or pushing some agenda, I hope some good Samaritan comes to your aid one day when you need it

....god forbid anyone trying to protect themselves today, jeez, grow up, guns are all around us whether you want to open your eyes or not, guns don't blow bubbles, create rainbows, or make you feel all warm on the inside, they have a purpose, and they are not going anywhere, PLEASE pick a more logical/ purposefully way to help humanity then to hand over the only protection and resistance anyone has to stopping BAD people from doing what they want

as far as problems we as a race on this planet face choosing to ban guns, is the most illogical, lazy and self righteous problem anyone can tackle, hunger, poverty, and inequality are FAR FAR more important, but I guess it's just easier to point the finger at and inanimate object and say BAN THIS

WHICH IS ONE PERSON IMPOSING THEIR WILL ON ANOTHER, and in the area of self preservation no less

the gall of some people

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

It is called the law of averages things will happen. The chances of you getting injured or killed by your medical care givers are higher than you being killed or injured by a CCH permit holder using their gun.

Another flawed argument. Both of the above risks cause a percentage of mortality. One is needed to heal and the other to maime. so if you remove the percentage caused by those people that a CCH permits and the guns. Then mortality rates will drop...

kx

Actually the rates go up. Go do some research on the crime rates in England and Australia after they confiscated hand guns. You could also look at the most recent stats for NYC. The tighter their restrictions get the higher the mortality rate goes. Gun deaths dropped by thirteen percent. Yet they realized a rise in the murder rate because the number of knife related murders increased.
New York City Source

I love how you pick out the difference between medical and gun injuries. What is your response to all of the women that stopped a rape because they had a gun? What is your response to the fact that guns save 60 times more lives than they take? Don't say ban them all and the worry goes away.

Brazil had registration, ownership limits, and licensing. They even banned the sale of hand guns to anyone not a member of the police force. Yet their homicide rate is three times higher than America's.

England banned and confiscated honest civilians' handguns. Despite that the number of crimes involving a gun more than doubled in the following decade. Four years after the ban violent crime was up more than 11%. By the time seven years had passed the number of robberies had increased by more than 22%.

Scotland was actually declared the most violent country "in the developed world" by the UN. It was estimated that 3% of Scotish citizens had been assaulted. That is compared to about 1% in America.

In 2001 the Dutch Ministry of Justice England and Australia lead the top seventeen developed countries in sexual assault, robbery and assault with force. Is it better that a woman should get raped or beaten in to a coma than defend herself?

Please address any of the factual information regarding guns and gun crime. I will debate you in a civil manner.

reply to post by purplemer


That is truly retarded.

You anti-gun freaks just have no clue, no active braincells, but plenty of mouth.

He (the man with cc gun) showed exactly how a well trained gun owner behaves.

Maybe instead of talking out your rear-end, you might visit a gun club meet some people there.

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by purplemer

 

That is truly retarded.

You anti-gun freaks just have no clue, no active braincells, but plenty of mouth.

He (the man with cc gun) showed exactly how a well trained gun owner behaves.

Maybe instead of talking out your rear-end, you might visit a gun club meet some people there.

are you infering that people that have attented gun clubs dont murder people....? and why you getting angry with me is it cas deep down you know i am right.. why am i retarded have you got any evidence to back that up....

kx

reply to post by MikeNice81


yes after they confiscate them.. but after a period of time when there are less in circulation gun crime drops..

kx

reply to post by purplemer


If you are walking into a situation and don't know what happened. How do you really know who the bad guy is in the situation. What if it had been reversed and the shooter was defending against a robbery or something else.

That is why I believe people should not be able to carry guns. They should be allowed to have them in their homes only.
You can kick a gun out of someone's hand. There are certian stragies to take down someone without getting hurt.
We all really need classes in self defense not a gun.

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by purplemer

 

That is truly retarded.

You anti-gun freaks just have no clue, no active braincells, but plenty of mouth.

He (the man with cc gun) showed exactly how a well trained gun owner behaves.

Maybe instead of talking out your rear-end, you might visit a gun club meet some people there.

are you infering that people that have attented gun clubs dont murder people....? and why you getting angry with me is it cas deep down you know i am right.. why am i retarded have you got any evidence to back that up....

kx

I have plenty of evidence: all I need is look at your posts. Not getting angry with you, you aren't worth it; angry with the hoards of dumbasses who speak and don't a damned thing about that which they talk.

reply to post by purplemer


So how many people have to die before the gun control becomes effective?? Pun intended....looks like you shot yourself in the foot!!!!
With soooooooo many great countries out there that dont allow guns, but have very open & welcoming arms, why arent all the anti gun people going on to better places to live??
I was in Australia in 97 when they were doing the gun grab, I wish I would of had your secret self defense method when my apartment complex was robbed in the middle of the day, or when I was mistaken for an Englishman outside a bar and surrounded by a group of Maori party goers for beating one of them in a pool game. Or the poor kid down at the local movie house who lost part of his arm to the machette wielding robber who got away with $45.00.
I strongly urge you to write a book on how to "Cower & Cry without Getting killed while waiting for gun control to be come effective"
Its a bit long of a title, but Im sure someone like yourself will come up with a more colorful title that will sell, god knows libiral radio couldnt sell it for the seven yrs they tried before going bankrupt.

But until then Ill be keeping my racist, war causing, testosterone spewing guns. Dont be hateful because momma wouldnt let you have a Red Rider BB gun.

reply to post by purplemer


Again with the foot in the mouth.. Not surprising, but you could try rubbing some braincells together.

Q: What country has the most per capita (That means per person) firearms?
A: Switzerland.

Q:What country is in the lowest 10% for per capita gun crimes?
A: Switzerland.

So how's that go again about gun control and confiscation and crime?

reply to post by purplemer


I'm afraid not.
Sorry, I am very liberal. I was once opposed to every one having guns but changed my mind.
Actually reading about the luby's diner massacre helped change my opinion.

The fact is taking them away isn't going to stop anything. Maybe if you did it 60 years ago, but the states are too saturated. You have to adjust your ideas and proposed solutions to be current.

Trying to limit people with guns now will help nothing. Most criminals don't buy their guns at the gun store. Criminals that want to continue committing crime will always buy illegal unregistered firearms. That is the danger.

So use your brain, propose ideas, but don't propose taking guns, propose fines to gun users that don't report firearms stolen or missing, fines for those who can't re-register or show where their gun went, propose selling a gun without a license requires official paperwork like transferring the title of a car. Do things to keep illegal guns off the street and people from buying guns for others.

Don't try to take guns away.

reply to post by Patrioitinsheepclothing


bud it just dont work its messed up logic.. pro gun peeps say we need guns to defend and they keep the peace... using that logic we should arm every country with nuclear wepons so they can all defend themselves and keep the peace...
I wonder how long it would take to have a nuclear war if we done that...
its a flawed argument..

people that carry guns are more likely to be in violent conflict that is a fact

Get rid of the guns......

kx

reply to post by purplemer


"writer"

Maybe you should not write any more until you've actually experienced something.

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by purplemer

 

Again with the foot in the mouth.. Not surprising, but you could try rubbing some braincells together.

Q: What country has the most per capita (That means per person) firearms?
A: Switzerland.

Q:What country is in the lowest 10% for per capita gun crimes?
A: Switzerland.

So how's that go again about gun control and confiscation and crime?

I agree it is not just the guns. the guns are a catalyst to allow killing...the culture plays an important role too...but you cant ban the culture so the only option is to ban the guns....
and i bet that even it switzerland that if you bannred gun ownership crime would be even lower...

kx