Good man,

I wouldn't mind to see more threads about the GOOD things people with guns do.

Thousands of people's lives are saved by guns each year and many crimes are prevented.

Originally posted by Screwed

Neither of you are really addressing the issue a hand though, now are you?

Of course I am.

I'm getting down to the nuts and bolts of it...this story is old and is only being posted as a pro-gun story to show how amazing and necessary guns are.

You may not like it, but that's what I did

How do you feel about what this man did?
Do you think it was

A. A good thing he had his gun

or

B. A bad thing he had his gun.

I think it was actually neither, It was irrelevant.

All it takes is a couple of people to grab the guy and disarm him... how many people do you think his "stabbing spree" would have killed compared to say, a gun?

Yeah...

Now, before you answer a question with a question let me warn you, I will not be derailed.
That is a common tactic used by people of your mentality and I won't allow it.

My mentality?

Not sure what you mean but your mentality is clearly petty, judgemental and moronic.

So, will you kindly provide a DIRECT answer to my question?
(probably not because your ego won't allow it)

My ego?

Who are you?

Why are you talking like you've read my autobiography?

Seriously....

WTF are you on?

Originally posted by blupblup

A. A good thing he had his gun

or

B. A bad thing he had his gun.

I think it was actually neither, It was irrelevant.

So then, following your 'logic' are you prepared to say that this man having a gun "was not" a good thing?
Are you then saying that this man having his gun did nothing to prevent more people from getting hurt?

Let me ask the question a little more clearly for you.
This is going to be really easy.
(btw, I am only asking this in order to show people how people like you think and the tactics you guys use in order to avoid having to directly answer a direct yes or no question, I don't ACTUALLY expect the answer)

Do you think that this man and his gun were a factor in the reason the knife weilding maniac stopped his attack thus preventing more injury?

A. Yes I do.

or

B. No I don't.

really easy.

All it takes is a couple of people to grab the guy and disarm him...

No one there seemed to have gotten that memo cuz', well.....It didn't happen now did it?

Now, before you answer a question with a question let me warn you, I will not be derailed.
That is a common tactic used by people of your mentality and I won't allow it.

My mentality?

Not sure what you mean but your mentality is clearly petty, judgemental and moronic.

So, will you kindly provide a DIRECT answer to my question?
(probably not because your ego won't allow it)

My ego?

Who are you?

Why are you talking like you've read my autobiography?

Seriously....

WTF are you on?

Notice how you still never really answered my question?

See, the more you press the issue with people like this and demand simple answers to VERY simple and direct personal questions the more angry and agitated their tone becomes.

The reason is this.

If they answer

YES, I do think him having that gun WAS indeed a good thing because he was able to stop the attack without ANYONE getting hurt.

Well, then that kinda DESTROYS their argument AGAINST guns now doesn't it?

But, if they answer

NO, I DON'T think that him having that gun was a good thing,

well, then you just sound like an idiot.

So, you force them to choose between sounding like a hypocrite or an idiot.

Neither one are really desireable choices to be sure.
So, they ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS try to find option "C" usually by answering your question with yet another question.

So sad.

Originally posted by blupblup
I think it was actually neither, It was irrelevant.

All it takes is a couple of people to grab the guy and disarm him...

Or just one with a gun. You want to go first and grab the knife wielding maniac? The average grocery shopper isn't a courageous hero trained in disarming armed attackers.

Originally posted by blupblup
how many people do you think his "stabbing spree" would have killed compared to say, a gun?

That depends on a whole bunch of variables, but the recent shooting spree in Colorado only killed 12 of a total of what, 70 wounded individuals?

Yeah, this is a pro gun thread about a story that isn't new and I like it. S&F.

as a neutral, i believe that the issue should not be whether people have the right to bear arms, as this thread shows guns can be used for good in the right hands but i do think that the selling of guns needs to be more regulated in an attempt to ensure that guns can only be sold to the right individuals like the man that this thread is about who undoubtedly saved innocent lives

Originally posted by Sek82

Originally posted by blupblup
how many people do you think his "stabbing spree" would have killed compared to say, a gun?

That depends on a whole bunch of variables, but the recent shooting spree in Colorado only killed 12 of a total of what, 70 wounded individuals?

Yeah, this is a pro gun thread about a story that isn't new and I like it. S&F.

So exactly.... One person stabbed with knife.... 70+ shot with gun and 12 killed.

That is my point

Nobody with a knife could get even close to that number.... they would be stopped.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
But I'm sure hit like 30 innocent people and other gun nuts started firing in random directions when they heard his shots and every child within 50 miles was immediately sent to an eternity of suffering in the ninth circle of hell.

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

I'm mostly liberal but anti gun control and I starred your comment.

excellent.

I think the problem is here, people are arguing that someone intent on killing can use any weapon other than a gun to go killing with, which it true of course, and that a suitable trained person with a gun proves to be no threat and in some circumstances they can be useful to have around, such as in this situation, which is also true.

However the real problem with guns is when someone does decide to go on a killing spree, once they start to use guns it becomes a whole lot worse. If Anders Behring Breivik had not had any access to guns, would his rampage of been so bad? Would so many have died? Could Holmes have killed and wounded so many if he had only used knives? And this is the argument for gun control, and their argument is correct, if no guns were available less people would be murdered. Not all murders would end of course, but there would be less. And remember both Holmes and Breivik bought their weapons legally.

There is a problem with guns on the street, and most of them are illegal guns, but there are so many of them because guns are so easily bought and so readily available, if guns were illegal completely then far less would get through to the black market, and it would be safer for everyone.

The one point that goes in favour of gun ownership for me is, if you ban them you automatically presume everyone is a killer, that they cannot be trusted and already guilty of some precrime. There is no easy answer to this, but both sides need to accept that the other has valid arguments, the situation in America is a mess really with so many guns being freely available.

what ever happened to the term hero.

he should be on cnn being lauded as a hero. the president should be inviting him to the whitehouse because he saved lives, put his life in danger and he did it without firing a shot.

and the guy should be thankful he wasn't a cop. because they would have opened fire.

its seems there is an agenda against responsible gun ownership and concerted effort to portray someone owning a gun as nut ready to overthrow the government or as the enemy.

when in fact they may save your life one day.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
But I'm sure hit like 30 innocent people and other gun nuts started firing in random directions when they heard his shots and every child within 50 miles was immediately sent to an eternity of suffering in the ninth circle of hell.

But it didn't happen that other people got shot. The criminal got stopped by a responsible gun owner..
This happens almost every day but the media won't report it because people like you won't read or believe it.

I just read that guns are successfully used 25 times for personal protection for every time a gun is used in a crime. You won't hear that either and I would suspect you wouldn't believe it also.

By the way, did this bozo have a permit for that knife?

This was from April, but I agree with Alex Jones on this. If someone is stabbing people randomly and I have a gun, they are dead, they don't get a warning. People are too unpredictable.

Originally posted by Screwed

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
to bad there wasn't some manly man there, who has a " imposing figure" who could have gave him a "whoppin. that he deserved before he went to jail.

but we have to settle for, justice in the courts. and no deaths.

lol, nice one.
That is destined to become an insider joke.
You should at least provide a link so people know what in the hell you're talking about.

Yeah, Where was the Canadian Superman when they needed him?
Although anti gun folks will find a way to make this a bad situation, where they should have tried to talk him out of harming anyone, I'm glad the guy was carrying. The right tool, in the right hands, at the right time.

This event should have gotten any airtime when it actually occurred.The knife wielder could have hurt/killed others if it hadn't been for the gun owner.Just a reminder that guns were not allowed in the movie theatre where the shootings took place.