Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-28-2018, 06:41 AM
 
4,345 posts, read 2,148,967 times
Reputation: 3397

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
You don't have to be. Martial arts is just another form of self defense against a knife.

The PD considers anybody with a knife closer than 20ft a lethal threat, and you will see them blowing folks away for that reason all day every day........and put me in the group with Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-28-2018, 06:44 AM
 
21,430 posts, read 7,421,476 times
Reputation: 13233
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91 View Post
A good guy with an AR15 rifle stops a deadly attack. I'm glad this guy stepped in, and ended this knife attack.
Trump would have rushed in even without a weapon.

Just sayin" ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2018, 06:55 AM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,809 posts, read 26,403,608 times
Reputation: 25705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios View Post
Trump would have rushed in even without a weapon.

Just sayin" ...
Sounds like the ninjas on here...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2018, 07:01 AM
 
4,345 posts, read 2,779,430 times
Reputation: 5818
A shotgun would have stopped it too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2018, 07:08 AM
 
5,913 posts, read 3,175,469 times
Reputation: 4397
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91 View Post
A good guy with an AR15 rifle stops a deadly attack. I'm glad this guy stepped in, and ended this knife attack.

Dave Thomas witnessed the attack unfolding and knew he had to do something.

“I poked my head out the door. There was a pool of blood, blood was everywhere in the hall. There was still a confrontation going on, there were about three or four people involved at this point,” he recalled to WGN 9.

Thomas said he ran back to his home and grabbed his AR-15 rifle. Moments later, he was ordering the knife-wielding attacker to stop.

And he did.

“I grabbed the AR-15 over my handgun — bigger gun, I think a little more of an intimidation factor. Definitely played a part in him actually stopping,” Thomas added.


https://ijr.com/the-declaration/2018...holding-ar-15/
Did you notice that he went home to get his gun. LOL This is a good example of why banning assault weapons or weapons that can kill 100+ humans in less than a minute is good. As for what this guy grabbed- doesn't matter. Or, maybe he could of subdued the knife wielding person by killing everyone. Problem solved and assailant down. Bottom line, we do not need weapons of war in the hands of Americans. Keep in mind that banning them will increase the price tenfold. So, instead of going down to your local Walmart and bringing home an arsenal for less than $1,000 that same arsenal will cost $50,000 or whatever. This story is not selling me on anything...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2018, 05:02 PM
 
Location: USA
7,474 posts, read 7,019,580 times
Reputation: 12503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
You will NEVER sees stories like this on national news shows.

The "armed citizen" site has over 500 PAGES of storied about how peoples used a gun to stop a bad guy and not ONE of those stories have been on the national news.

Need we have to ask, why?

And in how many of those cases was a relatively high-end weapon, like an AR15 or any semi to full auto rifle, pistol, etc. actually required to stop the criminal? Are we going to now pretend that thugs are immune to revolver rounds or shotgun shells?


THAT is the point here. Very, VERY few people are against "all guns." But a basic sanity check regarding the weapons wielded is not unreasonable. And yet every time these questions are asked, the far-right pretends that people want to "ban all guns" and that only a room-clearing weapons spewing 45-rounds a minute on semi-auto mode can have any hope of stopping a criminal. It is absurd.

If you live in a place where you NEED an AR15 to defend yourself, consider spending less money on "assault weapons" and more on moving to a place free of bullet-resistant mutants that we're to believe shrug off hits from revolvers, shotguns, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2018, 05:05 PM
 
Location: USA
7,474 posts, read 7,019,580 times
Reputation: 12503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakformonday View Post
Did you notice that he went home to get his gun. LOL This is a good example of why banning assault weapons or weapons that can kill 100+ humans in less than a minute is good. As for what this guy grabbed- doesn't matter. Or, maybe he could of subdued the knife wielding person by killing everyone. Problem solved and assailant down. Bottom line, we do not need weapons of war in the hands of Americans. Keep in mind that banning them will increase the price tenfold. So, instead of going down to your local Walmart and bringing home an arsenal for less than $1,000 that same arsenal will cost $50,000 or whatever. This story is not selling me on anything...
Exactly. It's utter BS. The attacker could have stopped the knife-wielding lunatic with a low-end revolver, or possibly even a weapon aside from a gun (though I wouldn't recommend that.) The right's pretend claim that nothing less than an AR15 will do is a blatant lie and a gross distortion of what gun control is about. They want to pretend they "need" these weapons for self-defense. If you live in a place where thugs shrug off hits from revolvers and shotguns, and nothing short of 45 rounds per minute can breach their regenerative shielding, move to a place with fewer bullet proof mutants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2018, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,120 posts, read 10,668,910 times
Reputation: 9771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post

And in how many of those cases was a relatively high-end weapon, like an AR15 or any semi to full auto rifle, pistol, etc. actually required to stop the criminal? Are we going to now pretend that thugs are immune to revolver rounds or shotgun shells?


THAT is the point here. Very, VERY few people are against "all guns." But a basic sanity check regarding the weapons wielded is not unreasonable. And yet every time these questions are asked, the far-right pretends that people want to "ban all guns" and that only a room-clearing weapons spewing 45-rounds a minute on semi-auto mode can have any hope of stopping a criminal. It is absurd.

If you live in a place where you NEED an AR15 to defend yourself, consider spending less money on "assault weapons" and more on moving to a place free of bullet-resistant mutants that we're to believe shrug off hits from revolvers, shotguns, etc.
There is no pretense, merely logic. You see, those of us who pay attention understand that banning a specific class of firearm, such as the AR-15, will do absolutely nothing to stop mass shootings. The only thing such a ban will accomplish is to force the next person who wishes to shoot up a crowd of people to choose a different firearm. How do we know this? Because AR-15s are not, contrary to popular belief, the only firearm used in mass shootings.

We also can make a reasonably accurate prediction that whatever firearm is used in the next shooting will become the rallying cry for those who wish to ban firearms in the name of "safety". How do we know this? Because when two young psychopaths in Colorado shot up their high school - not using AR-15s - there were cries from the anti-gun crowd that we needed to ban certain handguns. In 2011, after the Giffords shooting, there were cries from the anti-gun crowd to ban Glocks.

Logic tells us that the next shooting will result in more of the same from the anti-gun crowd, whose " assault weapon" mentality switches targets just as fast as the headlines give them a new firearm to go all "Reee!!!! This gun is too dangerous for civilians!!!!" about.

It isn't pretending, it's paying attention to a pattern of behavior and applying logical thinking skills to predict the future actions of a group of people who are consistent in their desire to ban firearms while being completely erratic in deciding which firearm to start with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post
Exactly. It's utter BS. The attacker could have stopped the knife-wielding lunatic with a low-end revolver, or possibly even a weapon aside from a gun (though I wouldn't recommend that.) The right's pretend claim that nothing less than an AR15 will do is a blatant lie and a gross distortion of what gun control is about. They want to pretend they "need" these weapons for self-defense. If you live in a place where thugs shrug off hits from revolvers and shotguns, and nothing short of 45 rounds per minute can breach their regenerative shielding, move to a place with fewer bullet proof mutants.
It isn't a question of need. I own many things that I don't actually "need". The question is whether or not you have the right to decide what another person may or may not purchase when the Bill of Rights specifically says that you do not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:49 AM
 
58,749 posts, read 27,080,924 times
Reputation: 14186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post

And in how many of those cases was a relatively high-end weapon, like an AR15 or any semi to full auto rifle, pistol, etc. actually required to stop the criminal? Are we going to now pretend that thugs are immune to revolver rounds or shotgun shells?


THAT is the point here. Very, VERY few people are against "all guns." But a basic sanity check regarding the weapons wielded is not unreasonable. And yet every time these questions are asked, the far-right pretends that people want to "ban all guns" and that only a room-clearing weapons spewing 45-rounds a minute on semi-auto mode can have any hope of stopping a criminal. It is absurd.

If you live in a place where you NEED an AR15 to defend yourself, consider spending less money on "assault weapons" and more on moving to a place free of bullet-resistant mutants that we're to believe shrug off hits from revolvers, shotguns, etc.
You have the perfect screen name because it fits your post to tee!

Go back and look at the stats AFTER Clinton signed the first so-called "Assault Weapons ban."

They claimed it would do so much and it accomplished NOTHING.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:54 AM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
25,442 posts, read 17,128,344 times
Reputation: 37134
I could have done the same thing with my Ruger Single Six double action revolver.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:19 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top