Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store

[KingCracker]

Here's one for you; how many homicides with firearms were committed during the day this guy used his gun for something useful, in the USA? The answer is approximately 80.

And here's another comment; once you've been aimed in the head with a gun while trying to help someone, your perspective on how wonderful they are might change. But I don't really expect most of you to understand, you're just children that haven't seen real life outside TV anyway.

BTW Russia has the highest murder rate of any developed country. Also I've had a gun pointed at me, that's why I choose to own a gun I refuse to become a statistic for you and other anti gunners to use.

Fact of the matter is if the guy didn't have a gun the nut case would of continued to stab people. Owning a gun doesn't make you a lunatic, doesn't make you clumsy, doesn't make you irresponsible. There are far more gun owners out there than bad news stories about gun about them.

[xendrome]

A gun is no different then your fists... You can kill someone with them if the situation calls for it to defend yourself.

Maybe we should outlaw our hands, and any other item that could be considered a deadly weapon (which is any item by law)

I can't say that I have seen a law anywhere in any country that says "You are not allowed to defend yourself if someone is attacking you, you must lay down and take it until you are dead". A gun is just another way of protecting yourself, if you don't like them, invest in a baseball bat, or some nun chucks...

[KingCracker]

A gun is no different then your fists... You can kill someone with them if the situation calls for it to defend yourself.

Maybe we should outlaw our hands, and any other item that could be considered a deadly weapon (which is any item by law)

I can't say that I have seen a law anywhere in any country that says "You are not allowed to defend yourself if someone is attacking you, you must lay down and take it until you are dead". A gun is just another way of protecting yourself, if you don't like them, invest in a baseball bat, or some nun chucks...

Its all about scary and dangerous things, they see a gun as "dangerous" so they automatically want to ban them. Guns kill people! You could kill someone with that! Ban them! Well here's a thought for you why don't we start teaching people to be responsible, why don't we teach our kids to how use and respect dangerous things such as guns. Instead of saying they're bad don't touch! How about people start teaching kids how to handle, teach them the safety rules and teach them how to shoot. If we teach them that they shouldn't touch dangerous things like a gun then excuse my language but they'll grow up to be wusses and god forbid they find them in a situation where they'd actually need to use a gun to save their life, they wouldn't know what to do with it because all their life they've been told to stay away from it because its bad!

If we ban guns because they're dangerous objects then what are we going to ban next? Swimming pools? Thousands of kids drown every year in swimming pools. Are we going to ban sports cars? Cars shouldn't go over the speed limit so lets limit every car to 75mph anything faster than that is dangerous!!

Here's another thought, instead of blaming the community blame the person. I am not responsible for what some idiot did so don't punish me punish him for his actions,should I think that all computers should be banned because hackers could shut down websites and bring our economy down and even worse? Are people not responsible for their actions, since when is a community of 84 million responsible for the actions of 1 person?

In your home, in Tennessee. Beyond that, it's not the Wild West.

I'm glad there's finallly a story on here that's not bleeding heart or gun-nut.

Of course its not the wild west but TN law also says I can protect my life outside of my home too.

[Hum]

dang Mormons

[Marshall Veteran]

Here's one for you; how many homicides with firearms were committed during the day this guy used his gun for something useful, in the USA? The answer is approximately 80.

And here's another comment; once you've been aimed in the head with a gun while trying to help someone, your perspective on how wonderful they are might change. But I don't really expect most of you to understand, you're just children that haven't seen real life outside TV anyway.

And out of those 80 homicides, how many were done by law abiding, concealed carry holders? Your point (or lack thereof) is at best, moot.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

He should be commended for stopping the perpetrator but also for commanding him to drop his weapon first (rather than shooting).

[KevinN206]

He should be commended for stopping the perpetrator but also for commanding him to drop his weapon first (rather than shooting).

It makes me wonder how the law would handle it if he shoots first without warning???

[THolman Veteran]

It makes me wonder how the law would handle it if he shoots first without warning???

Considering that someone was actively stabbing people, I seriously hope that they wouldn't have tried to do anything to the guy. But still, he kept his cool, and that's a good thing - one less person hurt (or dead).

[KingCracker]

Considering that someone was actively stabbing people, I seriously hope that they wouldn't have tried to do anything to the guy. But still, he kept his cool, and that's a good thing - one less person hurt (or dead).

Yep in this situation he did the right thing. If he continued after the warning then he would of been ok to shoot. I also think if the guy had a gun instead of a knife it wouldn't have required a warning and shooting the guy would of been the right thing to do.

[excalpius]

Even if they are not related, rates still went down while gun ownership went up. According to you, less guns = less crimes which also means more guns = more crimes. Are you now changing your stance and saying guns have absolutely no effect on crime rates? If not, DocM has proven you wrong, period.

All I said was that DocM's position was NOT supported by the quotes/statistics he provided. Since he has been proven flat out wrong, I do not have to prove the negative case.

And putting words in my mouth and then debating the words you put there is a pure debate FAIL since you are arguing against yourself.

There are MANY reasons why violent crime dropped in our country and NO evidence whatsoever that the number of insecure gun nuts has anything to do with it. Countries like Canada and the UK, for existence, have much lower violent crime rates than the US and the UK has almost no guns, but Canadians have lots of hunting-appropriate weapons.

So there is NO causation/correlation between the US reduction of violent crime and the increasing paranoia of little insecure men.

If you want to start a separate debate about a new topic, then please do that. But don't pretend I said one thing and then try and debate what you just said. That only makes you look as ignorant and poorly informed on this issue as 99% of Fox News viewers and NRA members.

[excalpius]

It makes me wonder how the law would handle it if he shoots first without warning???

There is no warning requirement in cases of self-defense. But a DA will always look at just how "in jeopardy" the defender is at the time of a shooting, for example.

[excalpius]

Also I've had a gun pointed at me, that's why I choose to own a gun I refuse to become a statistic for you and other anti gunners to use.

No one is arguing anything of the kind. Just see to it that your trauma-induced fear and cowardice never becomes our problem and we'll all be fine.

Owning a gun doesn't make you a lunatic, doesn't make you clumsy, doesn't make you irresponsible.

Of course not. The danger is in lunatics owning guns. I have not argued against anyone of sound mind owning a handgun or rifle for home defense.

[KingCracker]

All I said was that DocM's position was NOT supported by the quotes/statistics he provided. Since he has been proven flat out wrong, I do not have to prove the negative case.

And putting words in my mouth and then debating the words you put there is a pure debate FAIL since you are arguing against yourself.

There are MANY reasons why violent crime dropped in our country and NO evidence whatsoever that the number of insecure gun nuts has anything to do with it. Countries like Canada and the UK, for existence, have much lower violent crime rates than the US and the UK has almost no guns, but Canadians have lots of hunting-appropriate weapons.

So there is NO causation/correlation between the US reduction of violent crime and the increasing paranoia of little insecure men.

If you want to start a separate debate about a new topic, then please do that. But don't pretend I said one thing and then try and debate what you just said. That only makes you look as ignorant and poorly informed on this issue as 99% of Fox News viewers and NRA members.

You sure do like to bash people don't you. "Insecure gun nuts" calling NRA members ignorant. And saying there is no evidence that the crime rate has dropped due to gun ownership. Do you have any evidence otherwise? You're coming off as an ass because you can't have an intelligent debate with out being derogatory. As far as the U.K having no guns, that's far from the truth the police there recover thousands of firearms a month.

Btw what makes you think that because someone owns a gun it makes them "little insecure men"? Its called protecting yourself, you don't have to buy a gun, you don't have to ever shoot one, you don't have to have anything to do with them but calling people little secure men because they want to protect themselves is just plain ignorant and wrong of you. I don't call you weak and a victim in waiting do I? No I don't you have the right to choose to protect yourself or not.

[tomasarson]

owning a gun doesn't make you insecure. doesn't make you a man.

it's the right you have to protect yourself.

i used to hate guns. i used to think that if they were all gone then things would be better. then i realized that if we didn't have guns those same people who murder without real cause are the same people who would be bashing my head in with a rock.

i'm happy to own a gun. i will only use it if needed. and only because a lot of sick people in this world have multiple guns.

can't let some bad people ruin things for everyone.

love this song...

[DocM]

According to ?Comparing the Incidence of Self-Defense Gun Use and Criminal Gun Use? Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009, the first report is based on a survey that count preemptive strike etc. as "self-defense gun use".

A controversial survey funded by the Joyce Foundation, which is largely funded by anti-gun groups and has given $12 million to anti-gun "researchers." They usually get what they paid for.

The Centers for Disease Control Vital Statistics Reports run a few years behind, but here's the 2007 breakdown for firearms deaths. Keep in mind that the total number of purely accidental deaths that year was 118,021, with poisonings being the closest to the total of firearms deaths at 31,758.

Suicide: 17,352 (56.2%)

Homicides: 12,632 (40.9%)

• Justified Police: 645 (2%) (FBI 2007)
  
• Justified Citizen: 254 (0.82%) (FBI 2007)
  
• Murders: 11,733 (38%; Homicides - Justified)
  

Accidental : 613 (1.98%)

Undetermined: 276 (0.89%)

Total (2007): 30,873

So suicides make up 56.2% of firearms deaths, and most researchers say that absent firearms this number would change very little - they'd just find another way.

These defensive uses of a firearm are the vast minority of uses that prevent a crime. Far more often the sight of the firearm being revealed but still in the holster, or it being brandished, ends the situation cold. Very often these don't result in a police report, I've had several and so have family members, but a detailed survey reveals them and they get counted in the "crime prevented" category in the previously listed surveys.

IMO the wide range of "preventeds" result from filtering - some surveys only counting when the firearm is brandished vs. counting both brandishing and un-deployed reveals, or various proportions of both.

[KingCracker]

owning a gun doesn't make you insecure. doesn't make you a man.

it's the right you have to protect yourself.

i used to hate guns. i used to think that if they were all gone then things would be better. then i realized that if we didn't have guns those same people who murder without real cause are the same people who would be bashing my head in with a rock.

i'm happy to own a gun. i will only use it if needed. and only because a lot of sick people in this world have multiple guns.

can't let some bad people ruin things for everyone.

love this song...

Yep, truth is there are a lot more good people out there with guns than there are bad people.

If we go beyond self defense.

[tomasarson]

Yep, truth is there are a lot more good people out there with guns than there are bad people.

If we go beyond self defense.

i don't back the tea party or any other.

but that video is great. some people can't agree with the facts. (the weiner comment about being scared was a little much. guns ARE scary.)

[KingCracker]

i don't back the tea party or any other.

but that video is great. some people can't agree with the facts.

I don't back them either but the message is true.

[DocM]

It makes me wonder how the law would handle it if he shoots first without warning???

He would have been justified in firing just based on the attacks that had already occurred, and probably would have fired if the guy hadn't complied with the citizens arrest. Hell, here in Michigan if he'd have dropped the knife and ran away a citizen attempting the arrest could have fired on him under our Fleeing Felon Rule.

[Joshie]

Cool! I love stories about incredibly isolated incidents that happen with remarkable infrequency but still make people feel like one of their broadly-reaching principles is justified!

I bet I can find examples of good things happening as a result of something else some people disagree with! All you need is one or two stories every few years, right?

[tomasarson]

Cool! I love stories about incredibly isolated incidents that happen with remarkable infrequency but still make people feel like one of their broadly-reaching principles is justified!

I bet I can find examples of good things happening as a result of something else some people disagree with! All you need is one or two stories every few years, right?

what's your point?

people have said a lot in this thread.

[tomasarson]

He would have been justified in firing just based on the attacks that had already occurred, and probably would have fired if the guy hadn't complied with the citizens arrest. Hell, here in Michigan if he'd have dropped the knife and ran away a citizen attempting the arrest could have fired on him under our Fleeing Felon Rule.

+ 1

you don't need to say anything to anyone that is stabbing people.

what could his reasoning be? "i wasn't trying to kill them. just stab them in the arm?"

[Joshie]

what's your point?

people have said a lot in this thread.

The point is obvious. Certain people take advantage of stories like this, add them to their personal arsenal for the next argument, and bring them up as if it's a sound reason for people to carry firearms in public. My point: that's stupid. Principles like that should be argued in terms of principles, not anecdotal evidence (because that kind of evidence stacks up far more heavily against gun ownership than in favor of it). It's stupid to feel that sense of affirmation inside when you read stories like this, because, as I pointed out, any controversial issue can be argued in favor of or against with these kinds of seldom-occurring events.

There could be something legal that you're strongly opposed to, and with very little effort, I could find a story describing extreme circumstances where that law was the only thing that managed to "save the day". That story most certainly would NOT change your existing opinion, so why should anyone pro-carry take a story like THIS seriously?

[KingCracker]

The point is obvious. Certain people take advantage of stories like this, add them to their personal arsenal for the next argument, and bring them up as if it's a sound reason for people to carry firearms in public. My point: that's stupid. Principles like that should be argued in terms of principles, not anecdotal evidence (because that kind of evidence stacks up far more heavily against gun ownership than in favor of it). It's stupid to feel that sense of affirmation inside when you read stories like this, because, as I pointed out, any controversial issue can be argued in favor of or against with these kinds of seldom-occurring events.

There could be something legal that you're strongly opposed to, and with very little effort, I could find a story describing extreme circumstances where that law was the only thing that managed to "save the day". That story most certainly would NOT change your existing opinion, so why should anyone pro-carry take a story like THIS seriously?

Why don't you say the same when someone posts about someone going on a shooting spree..Its not like the media sides with the anti gun crowd or anything...I mean how dare I post a good story!!

[tomasarson]

The point is obvious. Certain people take advantage of stories like this, add them to their personal arsenal for the next argument, and bring them up as if it's a sound reason for people to carry firearms in public. My point: that's stupid. Principles like that should be argued in terms of principles, not anecdotal evidence (because that kind of evidence stacks up far more heavily against gun ownership than in favor of it). It's stupid to feel that sense of affirmation inside when you read stories like this, because, as I pointed out, any controversial issue can be argued in favor of or against with these kinds of seldom-occurring events.

There could be something legal that you're strongly opposed to, and with very little effort, I could find a story describing extreme circumstances where that law was the only thing that managed to "save the day". That story most certainly would NOT change your existing opinion, so why should anyone pro-carry take a story like THIS seriously?

i can't agree. even if it's one out of *. i can't agree. it comes down to the person and most people are sane.

i'm a safe driver but i still have insurance. people might hit me.

just like some crazy dude might start shooting in public, or break into my home.

maybe you didn't read my comments on how i've felt about owning a gun in my life. and maybe you will never get it.

this story didn't make me feel better about my views. yes it's one in a million. but the overall evidence you try to argue just doesn't make sense to me at least.

i'm against abortion personally(pro life for myself). if it were my kid i would never want it to happen. but people's rights still matter. so as lame as it sounds i'm pro choice. double standard .. i know. i can't even agree with the death penalty. i know a small amount of innocent people die from it. i don't want to pay for them to stay in jail if they really did something horrible but i've read a lot of stories of people being killed by the state even when evidence comes forward .. either before or after the punishment. so to me maybe it's not worth it.

it's up to people living their own lives in a sane way that helps the overall picture. and trying to say guns should be outlawed does not. even when some things don't seem 100% right to me i can still understand they're not trying to come down on me. and you are.