People With Guns Who Do Good

[tarcone]

Thought this was a thread that needed to be started.
All the negative gun stories in here. Let us atart a thread about people who save others because they had a gun.

Passing Driver Kills Man Who Shot Arizona Officer in Ambush - ABC News

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Thought this was a thread that needed to be started.
All the negative gun stories in here. Let us atart a thread about people who save others because they had a gun.

Passing Driver Kills Man Who Shot Arizona Officer in Ambush - ABC News

If neither the the man who the shot the officer or the passing driver had had a gun, there would have been two fewer shootings and one less death

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by AlexB

If neither the the man who the shot the officer or the passing driver had had a gun, there would have been two fewer shootings and one less death

Shhh stop using logic and common sense in a thread about guns being great

[tarcone]

You guys know you live in the United States, right? And people have guns. And I believe it is a constitutional right to bear arms in this country of ours.

Im not sure.

What would the left be like is the 1st amendment was put under the scrutiny as the 2nd has been?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by AlexB

If neither the the man who the shot the officer or the passing driver had had a gun, there would have been two fewer shootings and one less death

I'd imagine most 'foreigners' would probably come to this same conclusion...

[tarcone]

And Im glad no one has ever been killed with anything other then a gun. Because then your flippant remarks would make sense.

[JPhillips]

Jesus is loving guns.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And Im glad no one has ever been killed with anything other then a gun. Because then your flippant remarks would make sense.

People get killed by lots of things all the time, yes. I'm just glad that where I live, when people get the shits, go crazy, or commit a crime, the chances are very, very low that they'll have access to something with the killing power of a firearm.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

What would the left be like is the 1st amendment was put under the scrutiny as the 2nd has been?

I don't know, but I believe we're about to find out what it will be like when the 1st doesn't get the same protections as the 2nd.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Jesus is loving guns.

And now you know why Trump won. Elitist, condescending attitudes like this.
And these are the attitudes that will continue to allow republicans to win.
So delusional.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I don't know, but I believe we're about to find out what it will be like when the 1st doesn't get the same protections as the 2nd.

Do you really believe the 1st amendment is going to be attacked like the 2nd?
So delusional.

[JPhillips]

The second amendment isn't under attack. You can go buy a gun tonight. You could buy a gun yesterday. You'll be able to buy a gun tomorrow. There is no conceivable way that the 2nd amendment will be overturned in your lifetime.

[miked]

You can buy 5 guns, lots of ammo, with absolutely no idea how to use it or how to protect it. You are also much much much more likely to use it to accidentally kill/injury somebody else or yourself than use it for protection. It's not elitist, it's facts.

Yesterday Trump shouted down a CNN reporter trying to ask a question and called CNN fake news; did not allow them to ask a question. I'm not sure why you think a) the 2nd amendment is in such jeopardy or b) why it deserves more protection than other amendments.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The second amendment isn't under attack. You can go buy a gun tonight. You could buy a gun yesterday. You'll be able to buy a gun tomorrow. There is no conceivable way that the 2nd amendment will be overturned in your lifetime.

Attacked was a harch word and the wrong choice. I fall back on scrutinized.

And remember, as Obama says good bye, Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the USA.

[Groundhog]

Can you buy guns out of state? Seems like having strong gun laws in one state and not another basically makes those gun laws worthless.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by miked

You can buy 5 guns, lots of ammo, with absolutely no idea how to use it or how to protect it. You are also much much much more likely to use it to accidentally kill/injury somebody else or yourself than use it for protection. It's not elitist, it's facts.

Yesterday Trump shouted down a CNN reporter trying to ask a question and called CNN fake news; did not allow them to ask a question. I'm not sure why you think a) the 2nd amendment is in such jeopardy or b) why it deserves more protection than other amendments.

Links please.

Refusing to answer a question is not an attack on the 1st amendment.

a) never said it was in jeopardy
b) because I dont want a government to take away all my rights.

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

[tarcone]

Now lets get back to the intent of the thread.

Take your anti-guns BS somewhere else.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Can you buy guns out of state? Seems like having strong gun laws in one state and not another basically makes those gun laws worthless.

Whatever it takes, man. Whatever it takes.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Do you really believe the 1st amendment is going to be attacked like the 2nd?
So delusional.

Clean the sand out of your vag.

The second amendment isn't under attack. At no point is there, or has there been, or will there be someone out there who calls and attempts to enact a complete ban against the possession of firearms. None, so put your little cry fest away for a minute.

The power that one wields from controlling the media is far greater than that of one person with a gun. A gun is a gun, but the control, muzzling, or any attempt to penalize through the legal system, the freedom of the press, is akin to treason. Totalitarian strong men use the media to control the population. Propaganda is just that, and your President elect not only idolizes those who do control the media, he has proffered opinions as such that he should be allowed to as well.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Do you really believe the 1st amendment is going to be attacked like the 2nd?
So delusional.

Do you believe the second amendment is under attack or has been AT ALL in the last 8 years of Obama? So delusional.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Clean the sand out of your vag.

The second amendment isn't under attack. At no point is there, or has there been, or will there be someone out there who calls and attempts to enact a complete ban against the possession of firearms. None, so put your little cry fest away for a minute.

The power that one wields from controlling the media is far greater than that of one person with a gun. A gun is a gun, but the control, muzzling, or any attempt to penalize through the legal system, the freedom of the press, is akin to treason. Totalitarian strong men use the media to control the population. Propaganda is just that, and your President elect not only idolizes those who do control the media, he has proffered opinions as such that he should be allowed to as well.

Wow. You are a sexist, misogynistic person.

And when a totalitarian strong man is in charge and trying to control the population. The population better have guns.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Radii

Do you believe the second amendment is under attack or has been AT ALL in the last 8 years of Obama? So delusional.

Yes. Yes, it has. We had a president from a city that has the strictest gun control laws in the nation.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Wow. You are a sexist, misogynistic person.

And when a totalitarian strong man is in charge and trying to control the population. The population better have guns.

and you love to label everyone and call names at the drop of a bucket.

You see, that's the thing, guns involve violence to attain control, while media allows control without violence. That's why it's more dangerous.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

and you love to label everyone and call names at the drop of a bucket.

You see, that's the thing, guns involve violence to attain control, while media allows control without violence. That's why it's more dangerous.

I learned the labeling from you and your brethren. Pretty cool how it works, huh?

And we are arguing the same thing. But disarming a population makes it easier to control. Therefore, easier to control the media.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Yes. Yes, it has. We had a president from a city that has the strictest gun control laws in the nation.

You're serious, aren't you?

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Radii

You're serious, aren't you?

As are you. Where have you been? Everytime there is a mass shooting, call for more regulations.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I learned the labeling from you and your brethren. Pretty cool how it works, huh?

And we are arguing the same thing. But disarming a population makes it easier to control. Therefore, easier to control the media.

But we aren't and Jon's the only one who gets any kind of heat from me, although you're making progress. No, we aren't arguing the same thing. You're arguing that without a well armed populace that leader will be able to control through media.

I've never argued against gun ownership. Never. Smart restrictions, that the vast majority of Americans agree with, yes, but never wholesale elimination.

I'm arguing that with control of the media, control of the guns doesn't matter. That the first amendment will be under attack very soon, while the second only has been, because of the media that you've been fed for 8 years. Restrictions on ownership for felons and the mentally ill, background checks, are not an attack on the ability of the populace to bear arms. There are significant differences there.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by tarcone

As are you. Where have you been? Everytime there is a mass shooting, call for more regulations.

And every time, nothing happens. You're fearmongering. The rest of us are talking about actual things that happen in the real world. Not what you see on facebook.

[Radii]

i won't be coming back here. Dunno why I give in and engage sometimes. Apologies. Enjoy discussing all the times that its a good thing when one human being kills another. Sorry for my part in derailing your noble effort.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

But we aren't and Jon's the only one who gets any kind of heat from me, although you're making progress. No, we aren't arguing the same thing. You're arguing that without a well armed populace that leader will be able to control through media.

I've never argued against gun ownership. Never. Smart restrictions, that the vast majority of Americans agree with, yes, but never wholesale elimination.

I'm arguing that with control of the media, control of the guns doesn't matter. That the first amendment will be under attack very soon, while the second only has been, because of the media that you've been fed for 8 years. Restrictions on ownership for felons and the mentally ill, background checks, are not an attack on the ability of the populace to bear arms. There are significant differences there.

See, I agree. i do not have a problem with regulation. With limits. No to felons and the mentally ill. But what happens when a gun owner has a mentally ill person in the house. That leads to more attempts at regulation.
Again, Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation and the most murders.
And I argue that control of the populations gun ownership rights opens up a can of worms that leads to state run media.

I think we are arguing the same thing, only differently.

Im just coming across on a more extreme side than you.

I do not mind regulations.

But I started theis thread to highlight the good. When a cop gets ambushed and shot and a citizen who is armed saves his life, I see nothing bad.
Because criminals will not follow any of these regulations put on gun ownership. But law abiding citizens will. And who is punished by said regulations. Law abiding citizens.

[Chief Rum]

I sometimes fucking hate all you guys. Really, with all the love in my heart. If any one of you spent a second trying to understand anyone who disagrees with you instead of just whipping out your shafts and comparing political ideological sizes, maybe we as a country could get past the division and move forward together.

But none of you are interested in that. You would rather be "right" in a shit hole country than wrong in a good and strong one.

[Chief Rum]

And ban me for saying it. I could give AF at this point.

[LWSFS]

If only we posted more in his thread about his daughter's basketball team, none of this would have happened. The guy just wants to talk!

[tarcone]

LOL. Welcome to the board.

Nope. But my daughter plays HS ball. It was mostly if anyone else has a daughter playing HS ball or is a follower of HS ball.

[Honolulu_Blue]

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tarcone

LOL. Welcome to the board.

Truer words were never ...

I mean, it really is kinda that way.
Some of us really like each other.
Other really truly despise each other.
Occasionally, some that like each other don't get along.
Occasionally, some that can't stand each other manage to get along anyway.

Damn, almost sounds like ... real life.

The difference here being that we don't have quite the detailed power of selective association that occurs out in the world.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Can you buy guns out of state? Seems like having strong gun laws in one state and not another basically makes those gun laws worthless.

Like I live 5 miles away from Ohio and live in Pennsylvania. I work in Ohio. But if I wanted to get a PA CCW it wouldn't be legal in Ohio. Or in 4 other states that border PA. I have no idea what the legal workaround is (I heard Utah permit but never researched). I'm not going to buy a gun ever cause I get sad.

TL DR

State to state laws are dumb and reciprocity is far from guaranteed. I mean criminals don't care obviously anyways.

[Kodos]

Wash. man accidentally kills himself while taking a selfie with his gun, police say - The Washington Post

Guns don't kill people. Selfie-sticks do!

[Neuqua]

Getting back to the original intent of this thread:

12 Year Old Harlem Girl Gets Held Up At Gunpoint By 12 Year Old Boy For Her McNuggies And She Doesn’t Give A Fuckkkk - Barstool Sports

Props to the 12 yo boy who was trying to not let his classmate eat lousy fast food and tried to take it away from her.

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I sometimes fucking hate all you guys. Really, with all the love in my heart. If any one of you spent a second trying to understand anyone who disagrees with you instead of just whipping out your shafts and comparing political ideological sizes, maybe we as a country could get past the division and move forward together.

But none of you are interested in that. You would rather be "right" in a shit hole country than wrong in a good and strong one.

Post of the year!!! (Even if it is only 13 days in)

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I sometimes fucking hate all you guys. Really, with all the love in my heart. If any one of you spent a second trying to understand anyone who disagrees with you instead of just whipping out your shafts and comparing political ideological sizes, maybe we as a country could get past the division and move forward together.

But none of you are interested in that. You would rather be "right" in a shit hole country than wrong in a good and strong one.

Originally Posted by heybrad

Post of the year!!! (Even if it is only 13 days in)

This one will definitely be tough to beat, spot on too.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I sometimes fucking hate all you guys. Really, with all the love in my heart. If any one of you spent a second trying to understand anyone who disagrees with you instead of just whipping out your shafts and comparing political ideological sizes, maybe we as a country could get past the division and move forward together.

But none of you are interested in that. You would rather be "right" in a shit hole country than wrong in a good and strong one.

Great Schmidty impersonation. 9/10

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Links please.

Refusing to answer a question is not an attack on the 1st amendment.

Congress did not attempt to pass a law curtailing the freedom of the press, no.

On the other hand, look at his history of words and deeds. He asserted on the campaign trail that he wants to "open up the libel laws" so "we can sue them and make lots of money."

Remember, under existing libel and slander laws, malicious intent has to be proven. If Trump thinks the "failing" New York Times has committed libel against him, he has to prove that what was printed was incorrect, that the Times knew, or should have known, that it was incorrect, and that they negligently printed it anyway.

On top of THAT, the truth is an absolute defense against libel in this country.

"Opening up the libel laws" means changing one or all of those four factors, and that absolutely IS an attack on the First Amendment.

On the campaign trail, he banned a handful of outlets from being able to cover his events because he didn't like their coverage. How confident are you that he won't do the same as President?

That's also an attack on the free press - play ball, report things flattering to me and not things I don't like, or you won't be granted credentials for media events.

Was the letter of the First Amendment violated? No. Congress didn't make a law respecting the freedom of the press. On the other hand, if you're a media outlet whose reader/viewership isn't on the level of a CNN or a Times, and you uncover a damning story, how confident are you going to be about attracting Sauron's gaze after you see how he reacts to outlets with multiple times your market share and revenue?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by AlexB

If neither the the man who the shot the officer or the passing driver had had a gun, there would have been two fewer shootings and one less death

Nobody. Not even President Obama is talking about repealing the 2nd Ammendent.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Nobody. Not even President Obama is talking about repealing the 2nd Ammendent.

Neither am I, it would be impossible.

It was just an observation that in that particular instance guns didn't do good - it would have been a better outcome if neither of them had guns.

[Edward64]

A person with a gun did good. I'm going give him credit for it.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

A person with a gun did good. I'm going give him credit for it.

This.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I sometimes fucking hate all you guys. Really, with all the love in my heart. If any one of you spent a second trying to understand anyone who disagrees with you instead of just whipping out your shafts and comparing political ideological sizes, maybe we as a country could get past the division and move forward together.

But none of you are interested in that. You would rather be "right" in a shit hole country than wrong in a good and strong one.

Worth the read:

Can Gun Victims and Gun Advocates Change Each Other’s Minds?

[mckerney]

Kansas man accidentally shot at meat plant; buffalo blamed

Buffalo cleverly uses gun in self defense.

[tarcone]

Worker holds robbery suspect at gunpoint until police arrive - KMOV.com

Emplyee stops robbery after police leave.