0
48

[–] bfriend13 0 points 48 points (+48|-0) ago 

How many people can really shoot well with a gun in each hand? Probably kept him from being on target.

1
23

[–] MaMaPyCb 1 points 23 points (+24|-1) ago 

hey if his sheer stupidity saved lives, by all means...

[–] [deleted] 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

0
7

[–] nativevlan 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

"Grab the package and insult!"

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] kaizendaruma 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Upvoating without clicking the link because I know -exactly- what this is and I love it.

0
2

[–] Biflindi 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It takes a ton of practice to be accurate with a weapon in each hand. I do Cowboy Action Shoots on occasion and see more than a few new people dual wielding and losing a lot of accuracy for that small gain in speed.

0
1

[–] Chew_Monster 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That is insanely cool! How does one get into doing CAS? What sorts of weapons do you use?

4
36

[–] GinTrain 4 points 36 points (+40|-4) ago 

I'm not a gun nut. I think that if we're allowed to carry them then were allowed to carry them. And in this case it was good that the second shooter was there. Everyone or no one. Not even the police, well at least not our current police over zealous power hungry death squads. I think cops should be evaluated every year and put into extreme (Practice) situations to see how they handle it. I'm sorry to rant.

3
50

[–] Fuckery 3 points 50 points (+53|-3) ago 

What you just described is called training. Cops aren't trained well at all and no one seems to think this is a problem.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 49 points (+51|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

3
5

[–] kingkongsdingdong 3 points 5 points (+8|-3) ago 

Not to discount the problem, but there are so many cops. Even if they are more thoroughly trained, they can't all be super heros like some people seem to expect. I think more of the problem lies in many cop's mentalities rather than their inability to act properly in a situation.

0
1

[–] oowensby 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Training costs money. Many localities see police as revenue generating operations.

2
2

[–] DashingLeech 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

Everyone or no one.

Could you provide an argument for that. From an economics standpoint, and statistical standpoint, and from a human nature standpoint, it's best to minimize the number of guns for the greatest safety. (Yes, occasionally you'll be in situations where a gun might help, but you'll statistically be in a lot fewer such cases in the first place because of the difficulty of the perpetrator having a gun available to them.) But that's not an argument against properly trained and monitored people having them when needed. Solid police training (not like typical U.S.) and other agents makes sense. I can see arguments why not, and erring on the side of fewer guns will generally be good from the statistical availability point of view, but I'm not convinced that "or no one" is justifiable without a solid argument.

2
-2

[–] Foobarbaz 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

The problem is funding. Smaller towns are not likely to have the facilities to handle that. Federal agencies are so good precisely BECAUSE they do this training annually, if not more often for some. This is because you want to train them to get over the adrenaline rush and fear. Those are your two worst enemies -- maintain your wit about you and you have a significantly larger chance of success. To do this, you need practice scenario's. You need to see how officers react in given situations.

By doing that you address potential issues before they are serious public issues.

But, again, funding is a HUGE problem for that. The staff, training the trainers, keep everyone current -- that's not free or cheap. So, what you would end up having is either a.) federal training for state, county, and city police or b.) state for state, county, and city police.

Then, in exchange, what funding are you willing to cut? Or would you rather increase taxes?

0
2

[–] thewarp 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Maybe they can use some of that money they keep stealing off people. Nearly $180m a year in civil asset forfeitures, $2.5b since 9/11.

0
0

[–] Pepper-theDoctor 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

do you have any idea what their DB pensions cost? The cost of their equipment? The cars they burn through? Medical & other perquisites?

The pension alone is worth more than $70k per year worked in addition to their salary (thats cops in service, Ive read younger cops are getting boned). 100-200 bullets a weekend on their 9mm would cost the state a grand or two. Its a drop in the bucket compared to the lawsuits. NYPD pays around $100 million a year in settlements.

1
0

[–] RagnarDanneskjold 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Willing to cut the maintenance on MRAPs. Willing to cut the payout in lawsuits from misconduct and not have the payout come from taxpayers who had nothing to do with the misconduct. Willing to the huge pensions. Willing to cut the oversized SUV's and replace them with fuel efficient hybrids.

Additionally training is not that expensive. There are many simulator schools out there that charge reasonably for law enforcement agencies. You don't need to send them to boot camp to train them. Saying they don't have funding is a BS answer. They can sell their grenade launchers if need be.

[–] [deleted] 6 points -3 points (+3|-6) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
7

[–] mmabouncer 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

No one having guns is a nice fantasy, but they're here. Lets live and deal with reality. Bad guys can get guns. How does making it harder for law abiding citizens to get them deter the bad guys? And the police? When seconds count, they're minutes away.

2
4

[–] Derbl 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

He would still have had the second gun.

1
2

[–] lolol42 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

And nobody would have hurt feelings if we didn't have free speech. Unfortunately, there is a real social cost that comes with liberty. I'm willing to accept that cost, if it means that my rights aren't abridged.

2
0

[–] Im-Probably-Lying 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago  (edited ago)

mother fucker, have you never heard of a zip gun before?

or a crossbow?

or a dart gun?

or even a damned KNIFE????

you liberals are all the same: completely fucking retarded.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 17 points (+18|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

1
7

[–] BloodPool 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

Can confirm. This is why I CCW.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] JesTheRed 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Damn straight. There is simply no substitute for being prepared.

This man was prepared. Well done.

0
0

[–] Turbo_Sloth 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

While it's nice to have that sense of security, it's worth mentioning that the likelihood of you or your loved one dying from accidental unloading of your own guns is significantly higher than the likelihood of dying from a shooter.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Cyrillus 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

He did good by hitting the aggressor once in the leg, which didn't stop him from going to retrieve more guns and firing on more people?

The article says that after the shooter came back, the guy with the CCW permit:

fired at McCary [the aggressor] again to try to distract him as the victims fled indoors.

What the fuck is that? Why would you shoot at someone to distract them? This is an awful attempt to polish the embarrassing truth that this guy couldn't shoot for shit, and he's lucky he didn't hit anyone innocent himself.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Hereforthekeks 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It looks like you are trying really hard to make the good guy sound like a bad guy.

2
16

[–] sinsaint 2 points 16 points (+18|-2) ago 

Honestly, I'm not sure if this is a good argument for gun control or against it.

0
48

[–] Konstamokh 0 points 48 points (+48|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Neither. This is no black and white issue. Like most things.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] mlp 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

inb4 "no it's obvious and the answer X"...

0
19

[–] ShampocalypseWOW 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Against it, probably, if the bad guy's guns were illegally acquired. Gun control would then only make it hard for the good guy to have his gun. The bad guy would still be able to get them illegally, maybe even more easily.

0
11

[–] PlayByPlayAnnouncer 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I agree with you, but it strikes me that whether one agrees or disagrees with your sentiment comes down to how well they trust the law, and law enforcement. Don't trust the law? "we need less gun control", do trust the law? "we need more gun control!"

It's either, "the law will keep guns from criminals!" or "nothing will keep guns from criminals, least of all the law!"

Personally, I find it ironic that many of the same people who are calling the recent police brutality, can in the same breath make an anti-gun statement. How can you trust this artifice we call the legal system that much and not at all at the same time?

2
4

[–] sfshilo 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

I highly doubt he bought them illegally.

1
0

[–] Mr_Teatime 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

i don't understand your point, what is the difference between the good guy and the bad guy? Gun control would make it harder for both to have a gun and if the bad guy got it illegally (how do you get a gun illegally in the US?) with gun control it would just be more expensive, and so he would again be less likely to have one or am i missing something?

0
4

[–] Inverse 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The thing is is that people who want to do this kind of shit will find the guns regardless since if you're gonna go kill people, I don't think guns being illegal will stop you. There is a point in which regulations are good, but past that point it takes guns away from people who are responsible and could possibly stop these thing, and just leaves criminals with them.

0
0

[–] psychoch0mp 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Other countries have managed to implement gun control without bad guys going around shooting everyone.

2
-1

[–] Sis 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago  (edited ago)

What are you basing this assumption on? Are you implying this man was planning to do this? It seems to me he got pissed off, overreacted and flew into a rage, and drew his gun which he just happened to have. Making guns illegal would make them much more accessible, and only people planning premeditated murder would be getting them.

0
0

[–] tame 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I think it's an argument for gun control, purely because this kind of story is so rare.

Think of the number of mass shootings you hear about in the news. How many of them end with "a bystander with a legal concealed-carry weapon shot the perpetrator before they could cause further harm"? That's the argument behind allowing civilians to carry concealed lethal weapons, so if that argument holds water, shouldn't we see it more often?

[–] [deleted] 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
16

[–] namealreadytaken 1 points 16 points (+17|-1) ago 

The US has hundreds of millions of guns, at what point will the US reach the optimal level of guns to stop all crime or at least all mass shootings? 70% of the population armed? 90%? Why can the US only solve mass shootings by having more guns, yet other countries don't experience the same level of shootings with far fewer guns?

I'm genuinely interested in your answers.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] RagnarDanneskjold 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

If you're really interested well then, it's complicated. The supreme court has ruled the police has no duty to protect people in the US. Also the old adage rings true, when seconds count police are minutes away. How do you purpose people protect themselves?

In countries were people lack the means to defend themselves they simply accept their fates to be victimized. Look at the Charile Hebdo incident. There was no one to stop the assailants. Compare with Texas when there was a Mohammed drawing contest. An assailant showed up armed to go on a rampage. He was shot and killed in the parking lot without any additional loss of life. Look at the incident in London were an off duty military personal had his head hacked off in broad daylight in front of dozens of on lookers who simply filmed the event on their phones. Ircc the minister of defense publicly stated they needed to rethink their laws on firearms because that never would have happened in Texas.

As for mass shootings they've been in decline in the US for decades. Media sensationalizes them. Media has been told doing this will only continue to "inspire" additional shootings. They've decided their ratings are more important.

There are many social issues in the US that push people to breaking points. The lack of available mental health care is one of them. That's not a statement to advocate for universal health insurance either.

Many of these people fit a profile of being on the social fringes. Introverts with few ties to the community or others. Then drop a dash of depression, a pinch of mental illness and a lack of a productive output and there you go. And then some of them are certifiably nuts and would create destruction with or without firearms.

0
0

[–] psychoch0mp 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Surely theres better option than "we are scared of people with guns so lets arm and train everyone so they can take them out" Why on earth does the solution to gun crime have to be more guns? There are other options.

0
0

[–] lissencarak 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

100% trained carrying population is optimal, but obviously not realistic. People are just too lazy. Maybe if the NRA and other non-profits offered cheaper or free training, it would be more achievable.

As for shootings? You can't fix human nature. There will always be crime, poor people, and crazy people. All we can hope for is make it as easy as possible for the law-abiding good people to defend themselves in any situation.

Personally, I think having to CCW is a huge hassle. I would much rather be rich enough to have armed bodyguards with me, like literally every single really rich person. It would also be nice if restaurants, malls, movie theaters I go to and schools my kids go to have really well trained and ubiquitous armed personnel. Unfortunately that is not the case, as it is just too expensive. Well, unless you have money for the right private schools, I guess.

0
1

[–] tame 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

"An armed society is a polite society." - Heinlein

0
1

[–] KungFuJesus 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

to play devils advocate: or the bad guy is more likely to be trained and carrying and therefore more likely to kill people.

10
7

[–] Acerebral 10 points 7 points (+17|-10) ago 

Just to be clear, the "good guy with a gun" did not actually stop the shooting. He hit the shooter in the leg, who then went inside, grabbed a second gun, then kept shooting. The shooter then stopped of his own volition.

Despite the title making this look like the NRA's wet dream, the presence of more guns had very little impact on the situation.

0
33

[–] PlayByPlayAnnouncer 0 points 33 points (+33|-0) ago 

The shooter killed no one. The time bought by the return fire (where he went inside to get another gun) very clearly helped get people out of harms way so your,

the presence of more guns had very little impact on the situation.

is simply incorrect, IMO.

1
8

[–] administration1 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Can't even believe anyone can say this. If it were only a matter of "the presense of more guns" than there would hardly ever be the need to call the police. What makes a differenceis the "good guy" who is willing ng to fight and try to defend innocent people. Despite your liberal worldview, good and evil do exist, heroes exist, honor exists, and guns can be used for any purpose. Almost as if you want to find a reason to resent the fact that there was a good outcome.

1
3

[–] Bioreactor 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

crazy people will always be a danger, that's why the not crazy having guns allows us to neutralize the threat to many

0
3

[–] 1Sorry_SOB [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Did he hold the guns sideways?

0
7

[–] zambeezy 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Nah that's a killshot obviously. He would have mowed them down if he's turned it sideways

load more comments ▼ (27 remaining)