• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at grocery store

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store.

Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people."

Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. "There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms."

Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him".

I post this because, in light of the shootings in Aurora, Colorado, gun ownership once again is getting a bad rap from some people. So, for the umpteenth millionth time, I want to again say that it is not the guns that do harm. It's the wrong people getting them. Even with gun control, those who want to do evil with guns are still going to get access to them. So why not allow law abiding citizens to level the playing field with their own weapons? What good can owning guns do? This article should be the poster child for the answer to that question. Yes, we will always have monsterous douche bags around, but guns in the hands of good guys who respect guns for what they are, and who know how to use them properly, will always be a blessing. Yes, I still fiercely support the Second Amendment.

Article is here.
 
I post this because, in light of the shootings in Aurora, Colorado, gun ownership once again is getting a bad rap from some people. So, for the umpteenth millionth time, I want to again say that it is not the guns that do harm. It's the wrong people getting them. Even with gun control, those who want to do evil with guns are still going to get access to them. So why not allow law abiding citizens to level the playing field with their own weapons? What good can owning guns do? This article should be the poster child for the answer to that question. Yes, we will always have monsterous douche bags around, but guns in the hands of good guys who respect guns for what they are, and who know how to use them properly, will always be a blessing. Yes, I still fiercely support the Second Amendment.

Article is here.

Like all the other hero saving people with his gun stories this will either be ignored or only given a token mention by the liberal media.
 
Wow...another crazy person hurting people (and just to be clear, I mean the man wielding the knife). Is there something in the water?
 
We need laws to ban the sale of knives and other pointed objects. How many people have to be stabbed and die before we as a society recognize this and take measures to stop it.
 
Cars and alcohol don't kill people, either, but we restrict possession and use of them, too. It would be really nice if we could have an intelligent conversation over gun control, rather than reactionary ones where proponents of gun ownership rely on slogans to diffuse the discussion itself. There is no popular movement for mass disarmament, only reasonable restrictions, specifically to prevent violent incidents. The right and ability to protect oneself or one's home are not on the chopping block. Nor is the ability of citizens to keep weapons as a caution against tyranny. The issue is safety, and whether a little bit of regulation could go a long way to keeping us safe from violence. Not a lot of regulation going a little way. That would be unconstitutional. But the discussion must take place. The facts must be evaluated. If it turns out that restricting guns won't make us safer, than we shouldn't restrict them. But we at least have to address the issue in a rational manner, not with outrage.

We need laws to ban the sale of knives and other pointed objects. How many people have to be stabbed and die before we as a society recognize this and take measures to stop it.


The difference, obviously, is that knives have a purpose beyond violence. Guns do not. They are weapons, with no use other than killing. This is an important distinction that makes evaluating guns different from evaluating other things. Crossbows, for example, have no use other than as weaponry. Baseball bats do. See the difference?
 
Last edited:
Cars and alcohol don't kill people, either, but we restrict possession and use of them, too. It would be really nice if we could have an intelligent conversation over gun control, rather than reactionary ones where proponents of gun ownership rely on slogans to diffuse the discussion itself. There is no popular movement for mass disarmament, only reasonable restrictions, specifically to prevent violent incidents. The right and ability to protect oneself or one's home are not on the chopping block. Nor is the ability of citizens to keep weapons as a caution against tyranny. The issue is safety, and whether a little bit of regulation could go a long way to keeping us safe from violence. Not a lot of regulation going a little way. That would be unconstitutional. But the discussion must take place. The facts must be evaluated. If it turns out that restricting guns won't make us safer, than we shouldn't restrict them. But we at least have to address the issue in a rational manner, not with outrage.

Everyone says this kind of stuff as though they're the first one saying it, and as though this kind of data doesn't already exist.

What, specifically, are you wanting to know?
 
Like all the other hero saving people with his gun stories this will either be ignored or only given a token mention by the liberal media.

Always playing the victim. This time you're the victim of the liberal media not giving stories which support our politics enough attention.

Also its not as simple as "evil men and/or criminals will break the law anyway and get a gun, while law abiding citizens are defenseless" there are plenty of examples of countries which have very strict gun laws, even outright bans on all of them, but have extremely less illegal gun violence than the United States. However, before someone starts foaming at the mouth, I'm not advocating that I'm just pointing out a fact.

And lastly, well done on the part of that man it shows what responsible gun ownership is all about.
 
Wow...another crazy person hurting people (and just to be clear, I mean the man wielding the knife). Is there something in the water?

You mean besides the fluoride and chlorine?
 
Wow...another crazy person hurting people (and just to be clear, I mean the man wielding the knife). Is there something in the water?

Crazy people do crazy **** every day, thousands of times a day.
 
Cars and alcohol don't kill people, either, but we restrict possession and use of them, too. It would be really nice if we could have an intelligent conversation over gun control, rather than reactionary ones where proponents of gun ownership rely on slogans to diffuse the discussion itself. There is no popular movement for mass disarmament, only reasonable restrictions, specifically to prevent violent incidents. The right and ability to protect oneself or one's home are not on the chopping block. Nor is the ability of citizens to keep weapons as a caution against tyranny. The issue is safety, and whether a little bit of regulation could go a long way to keeping us safe from violence. Not a lot of regulation going a little way. That would be unconstitutional. But the discussion must take place. The facts must be evaluated. If it turns out that restricting guns won't make us safer, than we shouldn't restrict them. But we at least have to address the issue in a rational manner, not with outrage.




The difference, obviously, is that knives have a purpose beyond violence. Guns do not. They are weapons, with no use other than killing. This is an important distinction that makes evaluating guns different from evaluating other things. Crossbows, for example, have no use other than as weaponry. Baseball bats do. See the difference?

Just not true and you know it. A gun is a tool nothing more. It has no intent or malice, it is a hunk of steel with some plastic thrown in.
 
Cars and alcohol don't kill people, either, but we restrict possession and use of them, too. It would be really nice if we could have an intelligent conversation over gun control, rather than reactionary ones where proponents of gun ownership rely on slogans to diffuse the discussion itself. There is no popular movement for mass disarmament, only reasonable restrictions, specifically to prevent violent incidents. The right and ability to protect oneself or one's home are not on the chopping block. Nor is the ability of citizens to keep weapons as a caution against tyranny. The issue is safety, and whether a little bit of regulation could go a long way to keeping us safe from violence. Not a lot of regulation going a little way. That would be unconstitutional. But the discussion must take place. The facts must be evaluated. If it turns out that restricting guns won't make us safer, than we shouldn't restrict them. But we at least have to address the issue in a rational manner, not with outrage.




The difference, obviously, is that knives have a purpose beyond violence. Guns do not. They are weapons, with no use other than killing. This is an important distinction that makes evaluating guns different from evaluating other things. Crossbows, for example, have no use other than as weaponry. Baseball bats do. See the difference?


the difference between guns and other potentially dangerous objects is that in the latter case-only laws preventing misuse generally exist. No one wants to ban cars that can go 120 MPH, just driving that fast on a public road. no one wants to ban alcohol (well there might be a few kooks who didn't learn history)-we just ban being intoxicated in public

yet the anti gun nut cases want to ban some types of guns
 
Just not true and you know it. A gun is a tool nothing more. It has no intent or malice, it is a hunk of steel with some plastic thrown in.

people who don't shoot and have no clue about guns tend to make ignorant statements about the various uses of guns

right now there are a ton of athletes in London with firearms and NONE of those guns are designed to kill anything or anyone
 
Always playing the victim. This time you're the victim of the liberal media not giving stories which support our politics enough attention.

The media claims to be unbiased.Running guns are evil stories while deliberately ignoring gun save lives stories is blatantly biased. Especially when you have various people injecting commentary how we need more anti-gun laws in those those guns are evil stories.


And lastly, well done on the part of that man it shows what responsible gun ownership is all about.

Personally I think he should have shot the guy.It would have saved tax payers money and ensured that the victims do not have to go through any more grief than what they already have.
 
The media claims to be unbiased.Running guns are evil stories while deliberately ignoring gun save lives stories is blatantly biased. Especially when you have various people injecting commentary how we need more anti-gun laws in those those guns are evil stories.




Personally I think he should have shot the guy.It would have saved tax payers money and ensured that the victims do not have to go through any more grief than what they already have.

Really? This is not the statement of a responsible gun owner.
 
The media claims to be unbiased.Running guns are evil stories while deliberately ignoring gun save lives stories is blatantly biased. Especially when you have various people injecting commentary how we need more anti-gun laws in those those guns are evil stories.

Personally I think he should have shot the guy.It would have saved tax payers money and ensured that the victims do not have to go through any more grief than what they already have.

I would love to see some actual information to that point instead of just your anecdote, and while you're at it keep in mind that when it comes to things like television media that ratings drive profit by affecting how much they can sell their advertising space for. And when you're thinking about that, think what kind of stories people naturally want to hear about and keep coming back to hear more about. Is it "Man pulls gun, saves two lives, suspect arrested" or "Man pulls gun, fires into crowd, killing several?" People naturally want to hear more about villains than heroes.

And that is not a statement of a responsible gun owner, being a gun owner doesn't give one the right to make those kind of decisions. Unless you act to defend yourself or the lives of others, there is no place to use deadly force and a responsible gun owner knows this and doesn't seek excuses to kill someone like saving tax payer money or deciding the victims would prefer it, who are you to speak for them?
 
Really? This is not the statement of a responsible gun owner.


I would disagree somewhat. A knife is a deadly weapon every bit as much as a gun; a knife can kill very readily. When I was in LE we had many training sessions about knives, mainly to teach us to take them very seriously. A man can run 25 feet and stab you in the time it takes to draw a pistol and shoot him. Stab wounds are often fatal.

The man had already cut or stabbed more than one person; he had already committed Attempted Murder. Shooting him is a reasonable response; he is fortunate that the armed citizen who stopped his rampage before it reached "national news body count level" desired not to kill him if it could be avoided. Had he pulled the trigger without warning it would have been a justifiable shoot no question.
 
Always playing the victim. This time you're the victim of the liberal media not giving stories which support our politics enough attention.

I don't recall the last time I have seen such a story told on the national news. Or in any sort of news special that is national.
 
Cars and alcohol don't kill people, either, but we restrict possession and use of them, too. It would be really nice if we could have an intelligent conversation over gun control, rather than reactionary ones where proponents of gun ownership rely on slogans to diffuse the discussion itself. There is no popular movement for mass disarmament, only reasonable restrictions, specifically to prevent violent incidents. The right and ability to protect oneself or one's home are not on the chopping block. Nor is the ability of citizens to keep weapons as a caution against tyranny. The issue is safety, and whether a little bit of regulation could go a long way to keeping us safe from violence. Not a lot of regulation going a little way. That would be unconstitutional. But the discussion must take place. The facts must be evaluated. If it turns out that restricting guns won't make us safer, than we shouldn't restrict them. But we at least have to address the issue in a rational manner, not with outrage.




The difference, obviously, is that knives have a purpose beyond violence. Guns do not. They are weapons, with no use other than killing. This is an important distinction that makes evaluating guns different from evaluating other things. Crossbows, for example, have no use other than as weaponry. Baseball bats do. See the difference?

The great, glittering generality of "reasonable restrictions" AGAIN, of course, without actually defining those "reasonable restrictions" AT ALL. You should get the Haymarket, or Boo award for (re)stating the obvious without saying anything SPECIFIC at all. Interesting that you added "If it turns out that restricting guns won't make us safer, than [sic] we shouldn't restrict them", as that means the AWB, CCW permits and near total bans as used in Chicago and DC can be scrapped since crime did NOT go down after passing those laws. What is USUALLY said, is that MORE gun control is needed since what we have now is OBVIOUSLY not "yet" enough, since we still have SOME gun crime left.

Can you define what these mysterious "reasonable restrictions" actually are? How much they will cost the "reasonable" and law abiding gun owner in both money and possible time in prison? For example Texas has decided that to carry a handgun in a car is LEGAL WITHOUT A CCW PERMIT yet to carry on the person is NOT. In other words, a driver's license is a partial CCW permit but requires NO training or fee, but if one does not drive then they must travel UNARMED or pay $240 for a CCW permit.
 
Last edited:
The great, glittering generality of "reasonable restrictions" AGAIN, of course, without actually defining those "reasonable restrictions" AT ALL. You should get the Haymarket, or Boo award for (re)stating the obvious without saying anything SPECIFIC at all. Interesting that you added "If it turns out that restricting guns won't make us safer, than [sic] we shouldn't restrict them", as that means the AWB, CCW permits and near total bans as used in Chicago and DC can be scrapped since crime did NOT go down after passing those laws. What is USUALLY said, is that MORE gun control is needed since what we have now is OBVIOUSLY not "yet" enough, since we still have SOME gun crime left.

Can you define what these mysterious "reasonable restrictions" actually are? How much they will cost the "reasonable" and law abiding gun owner in both money and possible time in prison? For example Texas has decided that to carry a handgun in a car is LEGAL WITHOUT A CCW PERMIT yet to carry on the person is NOT. In other words, a driver's license is a partial CCW permit but requires NO training or fee, but if one does not drive then they must travel UNARMED or pay $240 for a CCW permit.

And of course, these types love to talk about things like "national conversations," as though such a thing is even possible. More likely what they really mean is "get everyone to come around to my way of thinking," 'coz I really doubt if any "national conversation" took place, and it came out differently from what they wanted, they'd say "OK, that's that."
 
Cars and alcohol don't kill people, either, but we restrict possession and use of them, too. It would be really nice if we could have an intelligent conversation over gun control, rather than reactionary ones where proponents of gun ownership rely on slogans to diffuse the discussion itself. There is no popular movement for mass disarmament, only reasonable restrictions, specifically to prevent violent incidents. The right and ability to protect oneself or one's home are not on the chopping block. Nor is the ability of citizens to keep weapons as a caution against tyranny. The issue is safety, and whether a little bit of regulation could go a long way to keeping us safe from violence. Not a lot of regulation going a little way. That would be unconstitutional. But the discussion must take place. The facts must be evaluated. If it turns out that restricting guns won't make us safer, than we shouldn't restrict them. But we at least have to address the issue in a rational manner, not with outrage.




The difference, obviously, is that knives have a purpose beyond violence. Guns do not. They are weapons, with no use other than killing. This is an important distinction that makes evaluating guns different from evaluating other things. Crossbows, for example, have no use other than as weaponry. Baseball bats do. See the difference?

When one realizes that people who want to mass kill other people will do so whether or not we have stringent gun laws, then maybe we'll understand that unduly restricting one's ability to carry firearms does nothing to increase safety in our country.

Under any reasonably suggested proposed restriction on the purchase and carrying of firearms, nothing would have prevented the Batman debacle. On the other hand? As in this story, if there weren't gun-free zones and right-to-carry weren't so heavily restricted/forbidden in many states, honest citizenry would be much better protected. LEOs can never protect us from these nutjobs. But ordinary citizens? Yes.They.Can.
 
I would disagree somewhat. A knife is a deadly weapon every bit as much as a gun; a knife can kill very readily. When I was in LE we had many training sessions about knives, mainly to teach us to take them very seriously. A man can run 25 feet and stab you in the time it takes to draw a pistol and shoot him. Stab wounds are often fatal.

The man had already cut or stabbed more than one person; he had already committed Attempted Murder. Shooting him is a reasonable response; he is fortunate that the armed citizen who stopped his rampage before it reached "national news body count level" desired not to kill him if it could be avoided. Had he pulled the trigger without warning it would have been a justifiable shoot no question.

I don't think anyone would have second guessed, depending on how things went down. My statement was based on jamesrage reasoning. We don't get to decide who gets to live or die and that is what he was suggesting.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2
 
I post this because, in light of the shootings in Aurora, Colorado, gun ownership once again is getting a bad rap from some people. So, for the umpteenth millionth time, I want to again say that it is not the guns that do harm. It's the wrong people getting them. Even with gun control, those who want to do evil with guns are still going to get access to them. So why not allow law abiding citizens to level the playing field with their own weapons? What good can owning guns do? This article should be the poster child for the answer to that question. Yes, we will always have monsterous douche bags around, but guns in the hands of good guys who respect guns for what they are, and who know how to use them properly, will always be a blessing. Yes, I still fiercely support the Second Amendment.

Article is here.
You are right, to an extent. Guns are tools. They are only a danger or an aid to the public depending on the persons who wield them. Guns serve primarily to accentuate the consequences of human conduct. A human that wants to commit a crime is ten times more effective with a gun. A human who wants to prevent a crime can do so ten times faster with a gun. And human mistakes have ten times as serious consequences when guns are involved. The point is that banning or promoting gun ownership does nothing to change the statistics of crime, heroism, or mistakes. It only aggravates or decreases the consequences.
 
When one realizes that people who want to mass kill other people will do so whether or not we have stringent gun laws, then maybe we'll understand that unduly restricting one's ability to carry firearms does nothing to increase safety in our country.

Under any reasonably suggested proposed restriction on the purchase and carrying of firearms, nothing would have prevented the Batman debacle. On the other hand? As in this story, if there weren't gun-free zones and right-to-carry weren't so heavily restricted/forbidden in many states, honest citizenry would be much better protected. LEOs can never protect us from these nutjobs. But ordinary citizens? Yes.They.Can.

Well said, and something my 14 yr old even understands. I don't ever talk politics with him, but when he says something 'political', I ensure he looks into both sides, for I don't want to raise a hack. He quite literally came to me today and said almost the same thing after reading one of his friends FB entries against guns...
 
I would disagree somewhat. A knife is a deadly weapon every bit as much as a gun; a knife can kill very readily. When I was in LE we had many training sessions about knives, mainly to teach us to take them very seriously. A man can run 25 feet and stab you in the time it takes to draw a pistol and shoot him. Stab wounds are often fatal.

The man had already cut or stabbed more than one person; he had already committed Attempted Murder. Shooting him is a reasonable response; he is fortunate that the armed citizen who stopped his rampage before it reached "national news body count level" desired not to kill him if it could be avoided. Had he pulled the trigger without warning it would have been a justifiable shoot no question.

Charge a gun and run from a knife has a lot of truth in it. A guy flailing a knife is extremely dangerous.

Hats off to this guy who reacted the way you want someone with a loaded gun to react.
 
Back
Top Bottom