Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Guns GUN CARRYING MAN ENDS STABBING SPREE AT SALT LAKE

GUN CARRYING MAN ENDS STABBING SPREE AT SALT LAKE GROCERY STORE


ABC4.com, Salt Lake City

Updated: 4/27/2012 12:26 pm | Published: 4/26/2012 8:20 pm

Here is yet another story where a legal gun owner stops a mad bastard from harming more people and possibly killing someone.

So if having more guns in peoples hands lowers crime rates, would having more terrorists on the streets lower terrorism?

Sure.

M
I do not advocate banning guns

I do question whether this guy needed an arsenal to do this? Did he require a thirty round clip? Was his intervention made possible because he did not pass a background check? Would a gun registration program have made this story impossible? On and on...

IMO this guy could have had a registered 38 cal revolver with the same outcome. But it seems like only choice we can consider is either banning all guns or having no regulations what so ever. And IMO there must be some other alternatives to consider.

Mick,

you may want to change the title of the thread.

I assumed for some reason that the man carrying the gun was engaged in the stabbing spree, but wasnt using his gun!

While the "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" meme is fun and all, it elides a couple of very important points - nobody died from the knife wounds (although, admittedly, they could have); and I wonder why he didn't buy a gun? Imagine if he had purchased a .223 caliber, semi-auto Bushmaster AR-style weapon, and half-a-dozen 30-round magazines, or a 100-round drum magazine? Instead of being posted on a website, or page 13 of the local paper, it would have been the lead story on every network and front page above-the-fold in every newspaper. Dozens of citizens, probably including the well-meaning gun-toting bystander (assuming he stuck around despite the odds), would be dead, and Congress would be contemplating and not passing any meaningful gun regulation for the umpteenth time, as it has for the dozens of previous such incidents in the last few decades.

This anecdote proves conclusively that real guns are not necessary for self-defense or for stopping criminals.

Since there was no need to actually shoot the gun, it could have been one of those realistic plastic toys. There would have been numerous ancillary benefits to that: it would weigh less and be more convenient to carry around; there would have been no background checks, CWP's, or chances of accidental shootings; it probably would have cost a lot less; the owner wouldn't have needed to waste time and money at a shooting range; a plastic weapon would require minimal maintenance; it wouldn't need a trigger lock or an expensive gun safe; the mentally ill would not have to be screened; arguing about the 2nd could cease; and children could carry them for protection.

And depending on the type of plastic used, this could be the elusive Vinyl Solution!

Does anybody know how much my MacArthur Genius grant will be? Or am I more Nobel material?

I'm so excited! I think I will take the day off and start planning how to spend the money.

"nd depending on the type of plastic used, this could be the elusive Vinyl Solution!"

I SAW that!