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

This weapon is primarily used to prevent sexual assault. The training video shows Miss Cowgirl brandishing her pistil while sternly commanding, "Stay, men!"

(Some may find my language appallin'.)

Here's the headline that will prove the gun-lobby right: "Untrained, Heavily-Armed Citizen, Previously Erroneously Denied Concealed Carry-permit, Single-Handedly Stops Potential Rampage by AK-47 Wielding Terrorists With a Dozen Miraculously-placed Shots from an Unregistered Concealed Assault Rifle, Injuring No One but the Perpetrator." I am currently negotiating for the movie rights.

Who the hell are you gonna petal that one to? Calmly awaiting an anther.

I see that you rose to the florid challenge, when a shrinking violet would leave this sorry distraction and not try to root out the systemic issues that bloom within such a flowery bouquet of fertile punnery. From hence forth, mum's the word.

i think i read that on WND or maybe Drudge ....anyway you are late ... the story has been written and re-told many times by those who carry unregistered concealed AK's

No, of course not.


Off the top of my head let's recall a few mass shootings: Newton, Va. Tech, Aurora. What did they have in common? Gun possession was illegal! People who were obeying the law were harmed by people who didn't give a fat rat's ass about the law.

With a few exceptions, mass shootings occur in locations that are soft targets. Soft targets are locations where the shooter is not likely to meet any armed resistance. Soft targets usually proclaim themselves to be such. They even put signs on their doors. THAT is where mass shootings occur.

Make it a criminal offense to possess a weapon at a particular location and law abiding citizens normally will obey the law. Criminals will not. That is your answer.


Your question was a shameful attempt to set me up. Further, I would tell you something else we all know as well, newspapers don't report buildings that didn't catch fire.

When armed individual stops a bad guy before he shoots people how would you know how many people that bad guy would have shot? Oh, it is reported but if it doesn't involve lots of blood, disabled children, or scandalous sex it won't lead even locally. Nationally, we'd rarely hear about it. Again, there isn't going to be too much to report if not much happened.


Not in this situation.


Yes, it could. If the good samaritan had had the opportunity to inherit the gun from his grandfather or his dad, it would have been difficult under gun registration. He may not have had the gun in that instance. But, no matter. Gun registration is not going to stop bad guys from owning guns.

The remaining questions you ask do not apply to the brandishing of a weapon as occurred in the OP. Let's keep apples with apples, shall we?

We shot PGU-12/B, a special load made for USAF Security, which was a .38 Special, FMJ. I carried a S&W Model 15-4, Combat Masterpiece with a heavy barrel, arguably the best revolver ever made. What a great piece of craftsmanship! I am proud to say I own one.

my response ... what you are suggesting is unstable people have enough presence of mind to not only concoct a plan but include only "soft" targets. I will counter with the suggestion this may be pure coincidence as I suspect an unstable person does not have the mental discipline to devise a well constructed plan.

I propose a study:
1. Arm all mentally unstable folks with an appropriate attack package i.e. at your discretion of course but please include at least one semi auto rifle with extra large magazines and at least one large capacity semi automatic pistol, and of course plenty of ammo
2. Allow participants to devise heir horrendous plans and not interfere in any manner prior to the execution of said plan and then only in the ordinary manner
3. Run this study for 100 years
4. analyze data

I predict the results will show that the perpetrators will only select sites with large number of targets, irrelevant to site, gun status

Gun advocates will NEVER propose a basis for controlling death and injury rates in the general population. In their idyllic world, the only people who ever kill anyone with a gun, of any kind, are crazy or criminals (before they kill; I make the distinction of a priori state because of course, after they kill, they immediately become crazy to avoid the death penalty and they are immediately criminals for having murdered). No sane non-criminal will every shoot anyone else except in self defense.

And we cannot control gun distribution, even if it's to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or crazy people because if we do, somehow, we will keep guns out of the hands of the sane non-criminals.

No matter how often we ask the gun toters to help us solve the problem by proposing steps they can live with to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of their fellow Americans, the diatribe starts.

Your statement is true, but only superficially

There are a couple of ways your statement is irrelevant
1. you have used registration as deterrence ... the reality is no law acts as a deterrent to any crime otherwise we would have no crime
2. laws are enacted for two purposes ... to define what is acceptable behavior and define punishment for failure to comply with that acceptable behavior
3. registration is no way prevents you as a "responsible" citizen from buying a weapon but it does, if properly implemented, prevent criminals from legally acquiring weapons

this is important as it forces criminals to acquire their weaponry from illegal sources ... do you see where I am going with this? no? ... ok ... it becomes a case of attrition .... as illegal sources are gradually put out of business, criminals would no longer be able to acquire weapons (of course this is the idealistic version and I am sure you have all manner of situational problems which have not been answered in the above but perhaps if you apply the general rules, you can answer those questions yourself)