Another case of a good guy with a gun

Since the mainstream media and democrat activists (but I repeat myself) won't tell you then I will. Another attempted mass shooting but this was stopped by a 22-year-old man with a CCW. Just like back in May, when a woman took on a man with an AR platform and won. Of course, we include police offices (on duty or not) but the lying left doesn't want you to know just how often people use weapons to defend themselves or their property. This is just a couple of cases of possible mass causalities and not property crimes. Like the man who had four tough guys try to push in on his door for nefarious purposes. The homeowner was knocked down (that's battery you know) but he was able to get to his feet and retrieve his AK platform. He drove the four away and, boy, did they run.

More guns for everybody!

WOOHOO!

More guns for everybody!

WOOHOO! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

ah after back ground check YES
maybe even a law if ya ok must carry

No guns = No mass shootings. Fewer guns = fewer mass shootings. A fairly simple concept.

No guns = No mass shootings. Fewer guns = fewer mass shootings. A fairly simple concept. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

But but but ... someone in the 18th century figured we needed muskets!

More guns for everybody!

WOOHOO! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Well ask yourself this question. If someone was to forcefully enter your home while you were there late at night how would it turn out for ya?

No guns = No mass shootings. Fewer guns = fewer mass shootings. A fairly simple concept. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Except for that’s not the case, nor is it even logistically feasible.

But but but ... someone in the 18th century figured we needed muskets!

Love this argument. If that’s true, wouldn’t it follow that people shouldn’t be able to express their views on the internet?

No guns = No mass shootings. Fewer guns = fewer mass shootings. A fairly simple concept. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Except for that’s not the case, nor is it even logistically feasible. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

You are absolutely correct. It's entirely unfeasible. It's also illegal because of the second amendment. But I would say (in my opinion) that by removing a lot of the guns in the country (US has 120.5 firearms per 100 residents) and by limiting the deadliness of the guns by caliber and magazine capacity we can limit the unintended consequences to the public. However this takes compromise and a federal law to accomplish and I don't think the hold the NRA has on some of the more conservative factions in this country would let that happen.

Well, the nra is bankrupt, so there’s that. Limit the deadlines? That kinda defeats the purpose of a firearm, which is designed to be deadly.

No guns = No mass shootings. Fewer guns = fewer mass shootings. A fairly simple concept. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

That's only true on paper. But in reality there would be a few obstacles. Like who's going to willingly relinquish their gun and who is going to actually collect them?

No guns = No mass shootings. Fewer guns = fewer mass shootings. A fairly simple concept. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Let me correct you. Fewer guns in the hands of criminals equals fewer shootings. A gun in the hand of someone that is not a criminal could be the difference in stopping a criminal with a gun as this story tells us.


Trying to disarm law abiding people is not the answer to this problem.



Serious question, what do you have against locking up, for life, anybody that uses an weapon, handgun or rifle in the commission of a felony and in the serious cases like mass shootings, we execute those people.


Unless and until the SC tosses out the 2nd Amendment, we can not disarm law abiding people. Get on board with the solution to this problem, take the criminals off our streets for good. That is the only solution I'm interested in.

But of course in Uvalde, its "A team of good guys with guns, and sanitized hands, acts like pussies, while the bad guy with the gun kills kids."

Mainstream media won't mention it? Odd-- its all over the news here.....

Mainstream media won't mention it? Odd-- its all over the news here..... Originally Posted by Grace Preston

reporting is very selective in other areas. it might not be immediate, some areas do get news of it at least 2 to 3 days later.

Since the mainstream media and democrat activists (but I repeat myself) won't tell you then I will. Another attempted mass shooting but this was stopped by a 22-year-old man with a CCW.

But today the news is saying that the mall where the event took place had their own personal edict against carrying concealed in effect. Besides risking that felony the hero was risking was risking collateral casualty in the background, which would have earned manslaughter charges for him. The most immediate concern was, of course, taking on a semi-auto rifle with a HANDGUN. When I was 22 I MIGHT have been that brave/rash. Of course the idiot press won't tell us what weapon he used, there's a hell of a difference in accuracy between a service type handgun and a micro 9. Also an optic would increase its range, but maybe 22 year old eyes negates that consideration.



Just like back in May, when a woman took on a man with an AR platform and won. Of course, we include police offices (on duty or not) but the lying left doesn't want you to know just how often people use weapons to defend themselves or their property. This is just a couple of cases of possible mass causalities and not property crimes. Like the man who had four tough guys try to push in on his door for nefarious purposes. The homeowner was knocked down (that's battery you know) but he was able to get to his feet and retrieve his AK platform. He drove the four away and, boy, did they run. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

.