dksuddeth

In Tennessee the other day, a disturbed former employee of a schnuckies grocery store chain went in to the store after he was fired, with a pair of butcher knives, and started stabbing people at random. With 8 injured, 4 critically, the maniac chased another victim out in to the parking lot where he was stopped by another civilian and held until police arrived.

Many news outlets wrote this story saying that the person who stopped this vicious assault TACKLED the attacker, but only a few got it right. This civilian stopped the attacker by pulling his own handgun and pointed it at the attacker, forcing the attacker to throw the knives away and to the ground until police arrived.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...61/detail.html

This was just ONE of the news outlets to avoid the citizen using a gun.

Here was one of the TRUE stories.

http://wmctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5180897

On top of peoples perceptions being swayed by a deceptive media, we also have this load of crap from the police themselves, further perpetuating that people shouldn't do the right thing.

yeah, I guess he should have just stayed out of it, not got involved and watched another innocent person be butchered.

Just one more example of how normal everyday citizens can make a positive difference, USING A GUN!!!!!!

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Ample

It really seems like to me that you are using this story to promote private gun ownership. Should we speculate that the reason why they got the story wrong is cause the news editor/reporter is against guns? I doubt it. I think if you add in the mix that the person that stopped the attacker pistol whip the disturbed former employee it would make for a more sensational story and sell more copies. Did you take a look who wrote both stories…. they both came from the associate press.

__________________

Her juju beads are so nice
She kissed my third cousin twice
Im the king of pomona

shakran

You just love to bash the media don't you? Well in this case you have a good reason to do it. Too bad you chose the wrong reason.

This is not an anti-gun media story. This is a "reporter got the facts wrong" story. If mutiple media outlets are reporting the tackling story, it's because they're all getting it from ONE reporter who put his story on the newswire. It's not anti-gun. It's anti-good journalism.


Think before you write. It'll go better for you The cops have to say that. If they encourage people to pull their guns at the first hint of trouble, then the first time some jackass does so and shoots an innocent person, the cops will get sued. They might not lose the lawsuit, but the bad publicity alone will not be good for the police.





Let's look at this another way. THis guy was very lucky. The guy with the knife didn't come after him, or throw the knife at him. The guy with the knife didn't have a friend behind the "hero" to take care of him while the original attacker kept stabbing people. . .starting with the gunman.

Should he have done what he did, or left the gun in its holster? Neither one of us can say because we weren't there, we didn't see the situation, and without that firsthand knowledge we can't make the call on whether he should have done it or not.


And I can give you examples of normal everyday citizens ruining people's lives USING A GUN!!!!!!! because they don't know what the hell they're doing. Little anecdotes like this are cute, but they don't prove anything.

dksuddeth

I rarely write without thinking, thank you. If you think what I write is done without thinking, maybe it's YOUR thinking that you need to look at.

No, the cops DON'T have to say that. They also don't have to encourage people to draw at the first sign of trouble, however, I think a man running after someone while holding a butcher knife is a damn fine indicator of being past the first sign of trouble, wouldn't you agree? Hundreds of innocent people are killed every month, so far the courts have all sided that the cops are blameless, save one court in chicago.


You crack me up. Where did this notion come from that allows you to think that a normal, decent, law abiding person is a complete bumbling fool that has no business defending himself or others but any wild, crazy, psycopathic murderer is the next best thing to superman? Please....the guy with the knife threw the knife away when he saw the gun. Not turn and run after the guy with the gun or throw the knife at him. why? because the coward didn't want to get shot. I also find it extremely disingenous that the attacker would have a friend standing guard in the parking lot, behind the one man that had a gun (how did they know that?) ready to crack his skull open so his buddy could continue slashing away.

I absolutely can say what he should have done. If he hadn't gotten his gun then the person that the attacker was chasing COULD have ended up dead. As it stands, that person remained unharmed physically because he made the right choice.




you can give examples of anything, they still don't prove that guns cause crime nor would they prove that guns ONLY destroy lives. Do some people have zero clues about how to handle a gun? Absolutely and thats their own fault. People need to take responsibility for their own lives and that of their families and learn how to deal with guns.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

I see you conveniently ignored my central point. I'm going to, safely I think, assume that's because you can't think up a counter to it.

No, you can't make the call as to whether what he did was the smart thing to do. None of us can, because we weren't there. Was it the smart thing to do, or did he do something stupid and just get really lucky? I don't know, and neither do you.

You need to relax. I'm not trying to take your guns away. I'm simply pointing out that your arguments in favor of guns are not logical. Just because you manage to dig up one or two stories in which a gun stopped someone from getting hurt does not mean you can generalize that to the entire population and say everyone should carry. Everyone should not carry, just as everyone should not drive. If we had better controls on both, there'd be fewer accidental shootings and fewer traffic accidents.

Keep in mind that whatever story of John Q. Public saving the day you come up with, I can counter with the Vice President shooting his friend in the neck.

hrdwareguy

The answer is not more control, the answer is to enforce the existing laws we have. (In both cases, guns and driving).

As to the OP, I applaud the man for taking action and making a call to help the potential victim.

__________________
Gun Control is hitting what you aim at

Aim for the TFP, Donate Today

shakran

Well. . .enforcing the law would, in fact, control the guns better, would it not?

dksuddeth

only for those that would actually follow the law. for the thousands that don't......there is no control at all.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Jazz

So then the answer is to get rid of the rule of law when it comes to guns? Sorry, I can't accept that. I'm all for people who are responsible enough to use guns safely and correctly having them, but there has to be some sort of control in place. There was no such thing as a repeating rifle (or even a rifle that didn't require great effort to screw the slug down the barrel) or a revolver, and I don't think that they ever envisioned vast amounts of firepower in the hands of the average joe. Remember that they didn't even trust the average joe with the right to vote in the original version of the Constitution.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

shakran

The Jazz hinted at this concept - ANY law is only effective with those who obey it. Since someone's likely to break any law you come up with, then by your logic we may as well abolish all laws.


We said stricter *enforcement* of the laws. So if someone has a gun they're not supposed to have, or does something with the gun they're not supposed to do, they go to jail where they can't hurt society with guns anymore.

dksuddeth

There are laws make murder a crime so tell me what sense does it make to make yet another law that criminalizes the use of a firearm in the commission of murder? Idiot politicians will tell you it is so they can tack on more prison time, which would be moronic except some more 'progressive' politicians and judges thought that murderers should be given a break, therefore they made mandatory sentence requirements instead of sending the murdering thug to the death chamber or to prison for life without possibility of parole.

The framers of the constitution didn't CARE about what technology would be developed in the future. They CARED about the people keeping power, not a government taking over and becoming the new overlord. Benjamin Franklin used his own money and bought a cannon for the PEOPLE in a small town in South Carolina so they could have firepower equal to the british army.

Because of a failing political and judicial system we have people who don't care about the rights of others NOT being kept in prison for life, but being let out time and time again. IF we forced the system to change then we'd have respectable people with automatic weapons as neighbors without having to fear that they would go on killing rampages.

Agreed, except for the part about guns people aren't supposed to have. Why should *I* be prohibited from owning a machine gun if I'm a average law-abiding american?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

Why should I be prevented from owning a nuclear missile and pointing it at your house?

Same concept.

flstf

Well, if you ban nuclear missiles then only the government and criminals will have them.

I imagine even the founders would have controlled nukes and weapons grade viruses etc.. due to their instability but would probably have allowed full auto weapons. I believe they would still want us to have some means to fight off our corrupt government when/if the time comes.

dksuddeth

this argument is plainly stupid.

First, a nuke would obviously destroy YOU as well as ME and anyone else in the area, therefore it is not a weapon of defense, it's a weapon of mass destruction.

Second, the insanity of some individual wanting to own a nuke for self defense OR defense against the government is patently absurd because it would afford neither.

Third, the argument that the people can no longer preserve a freedom against their government with nukes is ludicrous because a government would have to have popular support to fight an uprising. Using a nuke on their own soil, against their own people, would forever ruin even the slightest chance of such a prospect.

comparing ownership of nuclear weapons to automatic weapons is not even close to the same concept and to try to say that it is, shows you so far removed from reality that it would be useless to attempt to show you the wrongness of your argument. you would never agree because your hatred of your fellow citizen overrides any desire to think logically.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

First, a nuke would not necessarily have to be used irresponsibly. How often have you tried to disprove the characterization that gun owners are irresponsible? How often have you said that people can be responsible with guns, and even that the act of owning a gun is in and of itself responsible?

Well, if people were properly trained to use nuclear weapons, then they would not kill everyone and themselves. They would use it when it was necessary.

Second, nuclear weapons are only expensive because they aren't mass produced (like handguns, for example). If mass produced, nuclear weapons would become mush less expensive.

Third, I'm not sure what you are saying in your third point. I *think* you are saying that nuclear weapons in the hands of civilians against an oppressive government would be self defeating. I agree, somewhat, but you do not own a gun mearly for defence against the government, right? You owna gun to defend your family from intruders, or yourself from a mugger? There are many situations that weapons are suited for.

I think one of the big problems is this:
dkksuddeth, we all know that you are a very serious gun rights advocate here in the community. We can all appreciate that you are passionate about the right to bear arms. We also are beginning to find out that you can become very mean spirited when you are in discussions about this topic. You get mad because you think people are making light of your discussion. While I'm fine with you getting mad, I don't feel like your response is necessary or constructive. You could have posted your last post and gotten your point across without making that statement. Continue to build up the discussion. These threads don't have to end up being little wars.

shakran

And where in the 2nd amendment does it exclude WMD's, or weapons that could destroy the person using it? You run around telling us the 2nd is nonexclusionary (which is why you should be allowed to have a machine gun), and then in the next breath you tell us it excludes certain weapons. You need to sit down and think out your position on this so that you can present a consistant argument.


Plus, if you make the argument that we're allowed to bear arms UNLESS the weapon we choose to bear could destroy the person using the weapon, then ALL guns should be illegal because the person could shoot themself with any gun.




Yes, but you wanting to own a handgun or rifle, or even a machine gun isn't absurd, even though compared with the weapons the government has you may as well be using a slingshot?

I sometimes carry a simple stick as a self defense weapon. If I'm up against someone with a machine gun it obviously won't be much good for self defense. And it certainly wouldn't help me last very long against the army. Perhaps we should outlaw sticks.

I point out once again that the 2nd does not exclude weapons based on their utility. There is no qualifier in the second that says "unless it could kill the bearer, or unless it wouldn't do the bearer any good in a fight."



Ahh, now you're inventing an absurdity clause and a popular support clause to the 2nd. For an amendment that you seem to say does not exclude weapons or reasons to own weapons, you sure are digging up a lot of imaginary exclusions. Interesting that you ignore the only REAL exclusion, which says you need to be in a well-regulated militia to have a gun.



Saying you can go up against the government with a machine gun when they have tanks, howitzers, and stealth bombers is equally removed from reality. Are you suggesting that you, too, are not worth arguing with because you can't comprehend your own "wrongness?"


So me saying that I don't think a guy with a .40 caliber machine gun will succeed against an armored tank which shoots shells that are almost 5 inches wide means I hate my fellow citizens? Where exactly do you come up with this stuff?

If you want more people to be convinced that it's a good idea to let anyone own a gun, I think maybe you want to stop advocating it yourself. Your illogical and poorly conceived arguments would tend to convince people that maybe some people shouldn't have one at all.

dksuddeth

This is you 'spinning'.

Plus, if you make the argument that we're allowed to bear arms UNLESS the weapon we choose to bear could destroy the person using the weapon, then ALL guns should be illegal because the person could shoot themself with any gun.[/QUOTE]This is you spinning faster.

Yes, but you wanting to own a handgun or rifle, or even a machine gun isn't absurd, even though compared with the weapons the government has you may as well be using a slingshot?

And this is where you've spun completely out of control.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Kindly point out where it says you NEED to be in a well regulated militia to have a gun. If you CAN, then we know who's inventing imaginary exclusions.

We've had this conversation before. I theoretically proved it could be done. It's being proven in the real world today, as we type.

blah blah blah blah blah. Once again you've spun out of control. Is this how you win arguments face to face? take a logical argument or point from someone, stand it on its ear, then call it illogical poorly conceived, and tell that person he's nuts? tsk tsk.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

Not a refutation.

still no refutation.



Still nothing to counter any of my arguments (because there is no counter that will fly logically), but you sure are managing to be rude as hell aren't you? That's a GREAT way to get people to see things your way. Insult them, and I'm sure they'll all immediately convert to your cause.


Kindly inform us as to why they would mention a well-regulated militia if it didn't have SOMETHING to do with the bit about bearing arms.


No, you didn't. You indulged in a wildassed fantasy and then got upset when noone believed you.

Where would that be?


And once again you're replacing logical, well thought out - hell even partially thought out - arguments with being a jerk. That's certainly no way to convince anyone.

You might have a point there if your arguments were grounded with logic in the first place. And I have yet to say that you're nuts.

dksuddeth

I can't refute something that has no sensical point to refute. I also don't care too much about being rude to people that have been rude to me. I also have no interest in trying to give people the truth about an argument if all they are going to do is continue to be willfully ignorant.


They mentioned it because it's a fact. A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Nowhere does it say the right of a well regulated militia to bear arms or that only the people part of a well regulated militia can bear arms. Furthermore, it plainly states 'the right of the people', which is NOT a state OR a militia. It is a right of the people, individually, and nowhere in the constitution OR the bill of rights does it say that ONLY a well regulated militia has the right to bear arms.


I didn't get upset and SOME people believed me. Those that didn't, well they fit in to the 'willful' category.

Afghanistan (past and present), Iraq, Somalia, Vietnam, etc. etc. etc.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."