Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumMan with firearm stops man on stabbing spree.
http://www.justicearticles.com/gun-carrying-man-ends-stabbing-spree-at-salt-lake-grocery-store/A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith’s store.
Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith’s employee Dorothy Espinoza says, “He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people.”
This is a classic case for concealed carry. Without it, every single person there would have had only three choices - run if they were fast enough, submit if they were tough enough, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attacker.
A gun gave another choice. A gun protects the weak from the strong.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)The guy just needs to get a deadlier weapon next time.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)recently occurred, including the stabbing of two police officers before the assailant was stopped with a gun, http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_21384746/minneapolis-park-officers-who-shot-man-named-suspect . Yet the national news stations and major newspapers haven't seemed to give any significant coverage to knife attackers who have been stopped by those who have been lawfully armed with firearms.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)sylvi
(813 posts)will eventually produce an anti-gun post in the DU Gungeon.
...or was that the works of William Shakespeare? I forget.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you also think that those against drunk driving don't like cars?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Yes, it is quite true that there are sub-optimal ways to dig a hole, and if you don't have a shovel, then you don't have any choice but to dig it any way you can.
You can manage self-defense without a firearm. But you have to be stronger than your attacker.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)First and foremost it is dependent on a state of mind.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)But without strength to act, the state of mind won't help you.
Without a firearm, every single victim of violent crime has only three options - run if they are fast enough, submit if they are tough enough, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attacker.
You're not going to use Jedi mind tricks to defend yourself from a violent attacker.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You say "every single victim of violent crime has only three options". What you fail to see is the option of not being a victim in the first place. I think your post is very revealing as to the mindset of many, who see themselves as victims, which is really the issue.
The problem with this mindset is that it is self perpetuating. Those who embrace victimhood also tend to switch roles, becoming persecutors and rescuers. For help, see Karpman Drama Triangle http://www.mental-health-today.com/articles/drama.htm
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I don't think there are many people who want to be victims of violent crime. Yet there are still over a million such crimes committed in the US every year.
I'm sure it's comforting to those million-plus victims of violent crime that it was just all their fault for not exercising their option of not being a victim in the first place.
The simple fact is, there has been violent crime since the first man picked up the first rock, and there always will be. Until people develop mind-reading powers, there will always be victims of violent crime.
But be that as it may, I'm talking about what happens to people who already are victims of violent crime. Once you find yourself a victim of violent crime, as over a million people do every year in the US, there are only three things you can do about it if you don't have a gun: You can run away if you are fast enough, you can submit to your attacker if you are tough enough, or you can engage in a physical contest of strength with your attacker if you are strong enough.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I don't place blame on victims. Placing blame and discouraging victimhood are quite different.
Many victims, however, do own some responsibility. Those who stay in abusive relationships are a good example. Those who engage in criminal activities are another. Those who think carrying a loaded gun around are another example.
Self awareness and awareness of one's surroundings are far more beneficial ways to be safe.
Your world is very two dimensional, it seems, and thus fraught with danger. The biggest danger, though, is your inability to consider your options. From your previous posts, it is apparent that you tend to react emotionally to everything, in a kneejerk kinda way. Not a good mindset for someone contemplating carrying a gun around. Hope you reconsider, both for your own sake and the sake of your family.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Right, and if I wear a seat belt, I've already had a car accident! And if I carry a spare tire, I've already had a flat! And if I have life insurance, I'm already dead!
Jesus Christ, man! Being prepared for bad things to happen doesn't mean we have succumbed to some kind of inevitable fate!
I don't place blame on victims. Placing blame and discouraging victimhood are quite different.
What you fail to see is the option of not being a victim in the first place.
So if the million-plus victims of violent crime every year just didn't see the option of being a victim in the first place, whose fault was it?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Carrying guns around has been proven to have a net negative effect.
Being prepared for "bad things to happen" does not entail carrying a gun everywhere. That kind of behavior is an invitation for bad things to happen.
You want to measure victimhood in terms of "Who's fault is it?" Well, much of the violence is committed by people using firearms and you think the solution is more violence by others using firearms. IMO, that makes you a victim. A victim of propaganda, a victim of delusional thinking, a victim of faulty reasoning and a victim of the politics of fear.
You have stated in the past that you think guns should be used by private citizens against kids who carry toilet paper in the trunk of their car. You have stated in the past that would-be robbers should be shot or hanged from the nearest tree. You have stated in the past that you intended to get a concealed carry permit, just to spite me. Yes, you are a victim of the madness.
BTW, a seat belt is there to keep you secure in your seat, not to be used against another human.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Your post(s) will get alerted on by a gun-relgionist. They don't like hearing the truth.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)First of all, I don't believe that for an instant. Your entire way of life today exists as it does because of firearms.
Second of all, even if it were true, would you give up the means for effective self-defense because of the possibility of bad things happening with your firearm? I wouldn't.
Being prepared for "bad things to happen" does not entail carrying a gun everywhere. That kind of behavior is an invitation for bad things to happen.
Yeah, like wearing a seat belt is an invitation to reckless driving.
Well, much of the violence is committed by people using firearms and you think the solution is more violence by others using firearms. IMO, that makes you a victim. A victim of propaganda, a victim of delusional thinking, a victim of faulty reasoning and a victim of the politics of fear.
HuhWha? I don't even know how to parse that, let along apply it to the discussion at hand. You said:
What you fail to see is the option of not being a victim in the first place.
Over a million people every year are victims of violent crime. Obviously these people did not exercise this so-called "option of not being a victim in the first place" you think they should have exercised. Now if you aren't blaming them for failing to exercise this option, who else is there to blame?
You have stated in the past that you think guns should be used by private citizens against kids who carry toilet paper in the trunk of their car.
Yes, firearms can be used to stop vandals, and I have no problem with that.
You have stated in the past that would-be robbers should be shot or hanged from the nearest tree.
And what else did I say about that?
You have stated in the past that you intended to get a concealed carry permit, just to spite me.
Yeah, sadly I lost my job though I got another we have just enough money to make ends meet - no money for extravagances. I'm still tempted to go blow a 20 on it though, just for you.
BTW, a seat belt is there to keep you secure in your seat, not to be used against another human.
Yup. sometimes you need a tool to help keep you secure in your seat, and sometimes you need a tool to help keep you secure in your person.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Stay safe.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)But then, that's not surprising, really.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)to have a net negative effect." ?
Carrying guns around by whom? Are you including the illegal use of guns with the legal carrying of firearms? That's like comparing apples and walleyes.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I consider killing people a negative, regardless of who is the supposed "good guy" or "bad guy".
It's not about apples and walleyes, it's about human beings.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)like a backhoe for example.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)And the volume of dirt each scoop holds!
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)This happened quite some time ago, and it has been the subject of more than one threads in this forum.
I like a story with a happy ending as much as the next guy, but we can't keep regurgitating the same anecdotes ad nauseum.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The dollar General Store one is a recycle though.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)is from April.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)DG had a rough weekend nationally with three different stores being robbed.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Gun owners can't stop crimes, they'll just curl up into a little sniveling ball and wet themselves, dontchaknow
(just in case it's needed).
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)at the first sign of trouble dozens of legal gun owners will whip out their guns and start firing wildly in to the crowd, killing dozens (perhaps hundreds) of innocent bystanders before the criminal casually takes the guns away from them and uses it against them.
It has happened literally hundreds of times (+/- hundreds of times).
jbgood1977
(91 posts)That sounds more like the NYPD to me.
But of course, they're on the "approved" list of gun toters.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)This guy should've gotten a gun (completely legal to get one if you're as nutty as a fruitcake).
Then he could've followed in the illustrious footsteps of other law-abiding gun-lovers like the Aurora shooter & the guy who murdered Liberals in the Unitarian Church.
