Posted on 06/06/2014 5:43:55 PM PDT by PaulCruz2016
The gun lovers who preach that arming American citizens to stop even more violence always ignore the fact that Wayne LaPierre was wrong.
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s executive vice president, infamously said after a gunman in 2012 killed 20 schoolchildren and six adults in Newtown, Conn.
Yet looked what happened Thursday.
According to police, a student building monitor named Jon Meis used pepper spray to subdue a shooter who had already killed one student and wounded a couple others at Seattle Pacific University in Washington.
Police said the actions by Meis probably saved more lives, because the gunman had extra shotgun shells he could have used after reloading.
In the larger scheme of things, Meis’ use of pepper spray to halt the killings are at odds with the actual facts of how often a “good guy” with a gun stops a “bad guy” with a gun.
Basically, it doesn’t happen.
It’s a fantasy of the NRA and its most ardent gun-rights supporters.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
But in GEORGIA, it took a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun again.
I give the guy with the pepperspray big props, he is a hero, no doubt about it. He’s also very lucky and obviously brave. He and his actions deserve to be rewarded and celebrated.
But with that said, what would have happened if the attacker was one of those who can tolerate irritant sprays, or worse, he was ready for the guy with a backup pistol, knife, or etc.? Thing is, every encounter like this is unique in circumstance, the antis touting the spray as just as effective as firearms, are living in a fantasy world. In this case, the circumstances just happened to be right for the guy to succeed in defeating the attacker.
There’s this odd notion that a summary of a position can be dismissed because, as demonstrated by a single sensible exception/anecdote, the brief summary is not of peer-reviewed encyclopedic completeness.
Yes, by far, it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. That’s why cops carry guns. That someone with pepper spray stopped someone with a gun is a sensible exception to the rule without negating the rule, and does not justify disarming cops and fitting them with Dave’s Insanity Sauce in aerosol form.
Hey Yael, lets test that.
You take the pepper spray, I’ll take the gun.
Let’s see what happens...
And to think that there are conservatives who think the Libs are intellectual, and actually make a living telling us how debating Libs is the only way forward, Hello George Will. Basically I am saying the author of this article is a moron. Heck his fellow mooslim, Major Hassan killed at least one person who tried to disarm him, what about that Alliboobookah?
He was in violation of the order to “hunker down”.
Can’t have civilians going all “superhero” can we?
Yup. Prohibited by the libtards as that college: “13. Possession, use or display on University property of any firearms, weapons, fireworks, live ammunition, incendiary devices, or other items that are potentially hazardous to members of the campus community.”
Pepper spray is definitely potentially hazardous, ergo prohibited.
Off-hand, I can think of three.
There was most definitely the church shooting in CO Springs.
If I remember right, a school shooting in VA or somewhere near there, and it seems there was a mall shooting in UT or someplace.
Gun vs. Pepper Spray at 20 paces. What's the range on pepper spray ?
Yael is a leftist moron, once of the reasons I refuse to read the KC Red Star (and I live in the KC Metro.)
What he’s saying here is, as usual, idiotic. That a one-time fluke proves his fantasy. I’ve got a suggestion, Yael: Get the KCPD to disarm, except for pepper spray. Using your... well, what ever it is that you substitute for thought... the police have no reason for firearms, since in this ONE CASE, a shooter was disarmed by someone with pepper spray, disproving the statement by Wayne LaPiere.
Disproved. Yeah, right.
Hey Yael, I heard that they revived someone who had been underwater for more than 10 minutes with no lingering brain damage... I guess that means we can leave drowning victims under water for at least 9 minutes before needing to save them, right?
Yes, Yael is a moron.
Mark
Of course, how many instances of someone successfully using a gun in self-defense do these windbags ignore to arrive to such thinking?
“To reach Yael T. Abouhalkah, call 816-234-4887 or send email to abouhalkah@kcstar.com. Twitter @YaelTAbouhalkah.”
Anyone up for flooding his email with stories of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun?
In WWI, shotguns were known as "trench guns," and the Germans summarily shot any AEF troops captured with one. Though it was only a movie, a good point was made my "Hicks" in "Aliens."
"I like to keep this handy...for close encounters."
A shotgun is a terrific tool for close in fighting, but, as you say, in a real, extended firefight, a shotgun isn't the greatest tool.
Mark
This article is lurid. They expect people to be brave when armed with pepper sprays? Ok, then, just nut the Swat teams with only pepper spray... if that is all they need vs. armed citizens
Most of the time pepper spray will not beat a gun, he’s lucky he got close enough.
And aren’t libs against pepper spray and knives as well as guns?
Can’t fix Muslim either.
“There’s just one little problem with this: Not a single one of the 62 mass shootings we studied in our investigation has been stopped this way”
He is lying with semantics. All the mass shootings that were stopped by armed citizens were stopped *before* they became “mass shootings” by the definition used by Mother Jones.
Here are at least 15 incidents where mass shooting was attempted and stopped by armed citizens.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html
By Mother Jones definition (which is the common one, by the way) the pepper spray incident is not a “mass shooting” either.
They set up a straw man. When armed citizens stop mass shootings, they do not become mass shootings because they were stopped.
By the logic of this title, we should send our troops to Afghanistan with pepper spray and no bullets. We should issue pepper spray to all our police, SWAT, and land management armies and take back all their bullets and weapons.
Thanks for the link. Was sure that was the case but didn’t have a reference.
Why are we not hearing anything about the shooter and why he did this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.