Armed Bystander Stops Stabbing Outside School

San Antonio: A woman is in critical condition after she was stabbed outside her child's school Tuesday morning.

The attack happened around 10:00 a.m. Tuesday outside the Bonham Academy on St. Mary's Street. Teresa Barron, 38, had just dropped off her child at the school when the child's father showed up, and the two got into an argument. The child's father, 38-year-old Roberto Barron allegedly then stabbed the woman several times in the upper body and neck area.

Police say a bystander who happened to be a concealed handgun license holder pulled his weapon and ordered Barron to drop the knife. Barron surrendered and was taken into custody by the bystander and a school district officer.

Click to expand...

Armed bystander stops stabbing outside school|WOAI: San Antonio News

gun violence is awful, which is why the august 15 assassination attempt at tony perkin's family research council in washington, dc, got so much media attention, when the young lgbt activist shouted "i don't like your politics" and started shooting evangelists, apparently planning to plant a chick fil'a sandwich near each bleeding jesus freak

the splc (southern poverty law center) has labeled perkins' frc a hate group because of its bible-based views on marriage and homosexuality, which, of course, is in no way similar to political interest groups calling gabby giffords a target in the next upcoming congressional race for a house district

guns are really bad but some guns are worse

depends on whose wife is getting gored, it appears

as of now, obama is intimidated against going after guns---he craves the flexibility a second term would give him

obama hates accountability

seeya at the polls, progressives, in pittsburg, in western pennsylvania, in michigan and wisconsin...

bitter americans are on to you

Obama: "Small towns bitter, cling to guns and religion" - YouTube

Good thing the armed bystander isn't neighborhood watch because it is apparently a criminal offense for neighborhood watch members to have firearms.

This is just one instance when the armed man had the necessary experience and control of his weapon to use it to good effect. How does this one instance measure in comparison to the many reported cases of people not using their weapons for good reasons?

Douglas_Smith said:

This is just one instance when the armed man had the necessary experience and control of his weapon to use it to good effect. How does this one instance measure in comparison to the many reported cases of people not using their weapons for good reasons?

Click to expand...

You've got it backwards. There are innumerable instances of armed citizens stopping crime, and few examples of CCW'ers acting badly.

Most don't make the national media though... obviously..

Goshin said:

You've got it backwards. There are innumerable instances of armed citizens stopping crime, and few examples of CCW'ers acting badly.

Most don't make the national media though... obviously..

Click to expand...

There are a million permit holders in Florida. Gun crimes by those folks is virtually unheard of.

Douglas_Smith said:

This is just one instance when the armed man had the necessary experience and control of his weapon to use it to good effect. How does this one instance measure in comparison to the many reported cases of people not using their weapons for good reasons?

Click to expand...

Depends on whose statistics you believe. Estimates range from 750,000 to 2.5 million times per year as the number of times firearms are used to prevent violent crimes. About 16,000 people a year die by gun violence (Chicago alone is working to up that figure this year). The instances where they are used to prevent crimes are vastly under-reported. No news there...move along.

As good as a job our police do they can't be everywhere.This is why citizens should be armed and should be encouraged to arm themselves.

jamesrage said:

As good as a job our police do they can't be everywhere.This is why citizens should be armed and should be encouraged to arm themselves.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong but I will point out one thing: The man with the knife is a citizen too.

HonestJoe said:

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong but I will point out one thing: The man with the knife is a citizen too.

Click to expand...

And had the woman been armed the title of the thread most likely been "Woman fends off would be attacker" or "Woman shoots attacker" instead of "Armed Bystander Stops Stabbing Outside School".

jamesrage said:

And had the woman been armed the title of the thread most likely been "Woman fends off would be attacker" or "Woman shoots attacker" instead of "Armed Bystander Stops Stabbing Outside School".

Click to expand...

I'm not convinced, given that the attacker clearly had it in his deranged mind to cause her harm while all she would have had on her mind would have been getting her kids to school. If he had a gun, he could have shot her (and who knows who else) before she'd even realised what he was doing.

That isn't really my point though. Regardless of the weapons involved, these kind of situations are unpredictable and always on a narrow line between lucky escape or massive disaster. The only thing I was actually pointing out was that if you promote the principal of all citizens being routinely armed, that means all citizens can be routinely armed. It may well turn out that there are a lot more people we would agree probably shouldn't be walking around with a deadly weapon that you might initially realise.

How we practically deal with these moral and legal contradictions and conflicts is a different matter but you can only properly address that from a position of honest realism, not wishful thinking and best case scenarios.

HonestJoe said:

I'm not convinced, given that the attacker clearly had it in his deranged mind to cause her harm while all she would have had on her mind would have been getting her kids to school. If he had a gun, he could have shot her (and who knows who else) before she'd even realised what he was doing.

Click to expand...

The fact is the victim of the attack was unarmed.Had she been armed the results would be different and most likley favorable towards the victim.

That isn't really my point though. Regardless of the weapons involved, these kind of situations are unpredictable and always on a narrow line between lucky escape or massive disaster. The only thing I was actually pointing out was that if you promote the principal of all citizens being routinely armed, that means all citizens can be routinely armed. It may well turn out that there are a lot more people we would agree probably shouldn't be walking around with a deadly weapon that you might initially realise.

Click to expand...

Those people already do walk around with a weapon.The goal is to encourage law abiding citizens to arm themselves,the group of people in many major cities who are not armed.

jamesrage said:

The fact is the victim of the attack was unarmed.Had she been armed the results would be different and most likley favorable towards the victim.

Click to expand...

I disagree with the assumption. The outcome may have been different and that may have been better has she been armed but I don't think we can assume that is the case. Surely you can imagine how either of this couple pulling out a gun during their heated argument outside a school could have very easily had disastrous consequences.

jamesrage said:

Those people already do walk around with a weapon.The goal is to encourage law abiding citizens to arm themselves,the group of people in many major cities who are not armed.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Most Americans don't own or carry firearms. That's going to include a whole load who, for all sorts of reasons, probably shouldn't.

The attacker in this incident is a classic example. He presumably didn't have a gun which would be why he resorted to using a knife and I'd hope we can agree that, in the context of this incident, it is better for everyone that he wasn't carrying a gun. It is also perfectly possible that prior to this incident he was (officially speaking) a law abiding citizen.

HonestJoe said:

I'm not convinced, given that the attacker clearly had it in his deranged mind to cause her harm while all she would have had on her mind would have been getting her kids to school. If he had a gun, he could have shot her (and who knows who else) before she'd even realised what he was doing.

That isn't really my point though. Regardless of the weapons involved, these kind of situations are unpredictable and always on a narrow line between lucky escape or massive disaster. The only thing I was actually pointing out was that if you promote the principal of all citizens being routinely armed, that means all citizens can be routinely armed. It may well turn out that there are a lot more people we would agree probably shouldn't be walking around with a deadly weapon that you might initially realise.

How we practically deal with these moral and legal contradictions and conflicts is a different matter but you can only properly address that from a position of honest realism, not wishful thinking and best case scenarios.

Click to expand...

Most states DO allow law abiding citizens to legally carry a concealed weapon, have for decades, and the streets have not been running with blood caused by overzealous gun owners. Most CCW holders are trained, safe, and very responsible. Statistics bear that out. It is also a truth that even though CW is ALLOWED not everyone chooses to carry a weapon. It is also and finally true that cities where law abiding citizens are denied CCW rights continually have the highest murder and violent crime rates.

More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is NEVER the problem.

VanceMack said:

Most states DO allow law abiding citizens to legally carry a concealed weapon, have for decades, and the streets have not been running with blood caused by overzealous gun owners. Most CCW holders are trained, safe, and very responsible. Statistics bear that out. It is also a truth that even though CW is ALLOWED not everyone chooses to carry a weapon.

Click to expand...

All of that is true but not really relevant to my point. I'm not saying private citizens shouldn't be allowed to have guns, I'm saying that carrying a gun isn't a magic solution to violent crime and that extending ownership of guns much wider than the largely knowledgeable and responsible people who currently have them to the wider population is going to inevitably include a whole load of people are neither knowledgeable or responsible.

VanceMack said:

It is also and finally true that cities where law abiding citizens are denied CCW rights continually have the highest murder and violent crime rates.

Click to expand...

Often true, though there remain questions whether there is a significant link between the two.

VanceMack said:

More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is NEVER the problem.

Click to expand...

Not withstanding accidents and suicides. A gun remains a dangerous tool.

My key point is that a criminal is a law abiding citizen who has committed a crime. Until they've committed a crime, been caught and successfully convicted, they're indistinguishable from actual law abiding citizens. Similarly, many guns used in crimes will have started out as legally held guns.

Bottom line - increasing legally held and used guns will also increase illegally held and used guns. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen - the cost-benefit balance could well be an acceptable one - but it is dishonest to address the general question without also recognising the inevitable negative aspects of increasing private gun ownership however well intentioned it may be.

HonestJoe said:

All of that is true but not really relevant to my point. I'm not saying private citizens shouldn't be allowed to have guns, I'm saying that carrying a gun isn't a magic solution to violent crime and that extending ownership of guns much wider than the largely knowledgeable and responsible people who currently have them to the wider population is going to inevitably include a whole load of people are neither knowledgeable or responsible.

Often true, though there remain questions whether there is a significant link between the two.

Not withstanding accidents and suicides. A gun remains a dangerous tool.

My key point is that a criminal is a law abiding citizen who has committed a crime. Until they've committed a crime, been caught and successfully convicted, they're indistinguishable from actual law abiding citizens. Similarly, many guns used in crimes will have started out as legally held guns.

Bottom line - increasing legally held and used guns will also increase illegally held and used guns. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen - the cost-benefit balance could well be an acceptable one - but it is dishonest to address the general question without also recognising the inevitable negative aspects of increasing private gun ownership however well intentioned it may be.

Click to expand...

Your "bottom line" is wrong. We have 4 decades of precedence.

HonestJoe said:

I disagree with the assumption. The outcome may have been different and that may have been better has she been armed but I don't think we can assume that is the case. Surely you can imagine how either of this couple pulling out a gun during their heated argument outside a school could have very easily had disastrous consequences.

Click to expand...

Had the woman been armed either she would have shot,tazered,stabbed or pepper sprayed her attacker or her attacker may have even left her alone if he knew she was armed.The fact is she was unarmed and nearly stabbed to death,had she been armed she most likely would have not been stabbed.

Not at all. Most Americans don't own or carry firearms. That's going to include a whole load who, for all sorts of reasons, probably shouldn't.

Click to expand...

This is a country that has at least 270 million + firearms.Your telling me that most of those firearm owners do not walk around armed? Firearms are not the only weapons,there are also tazers,peppe spray,knives and other weapons.

The attacker in this incident is a classic example. He presumably didn't have a gun which would be why he resorted to using a knife and I'd hope we can agree that, in the context of this incident, it is better for everyone that he wasn't carrying a gun. It is also perfectly possible that prior to this incident he was (officially speaking) a law abiding citizen.

Click to expand...

Who knows why he didn't have a gun.He may have never simply felt the need to own a gun.But it still doesn't change the fact the people we don't want armed are the ones who are most likely armed already.

jamesrage said:

Had the woman been armed either she would have shot,tazered,stabbed or pepper sprayed her attacker or her attacker may have even left her alone if he knew she was armed.The fact is she was unarmed and nearly stabbed to death,had she been armed she most likely would have not been stabbed.

Click to expand...

Again, you're still making an assumption that the outcome had she been armed would almost certainly have been better but you have very limited basis on which to make that assumption. If he attacked her suddenly, there is no reason to believe she would have been able to even get her weapon before he stabbed her. I totally agree that it's possible her being armed could have resulted in a better outcome but I disagree with the assumption that it would have.

jamesrage said:

This is a country that has at least 270 million + firearms.Your telling me that most of those firearm owners do not walk around armed? Firearms are not the only weapons,there are also tazers,peppe spray,knives and other weapons.

Click to expand...

No, I'm telling you that most Americans don't own firearms (and so by definition don't carry them) (Gun Ownership and Use in America). Of those who do, I suggest a significant proportion don't regularly carry firearms on their person (though that seems to be harder to find clear figures on).

The fact is that a move to the position of all Americans carrying firearms (or indeed other weapons) would mean a huge increase in the overall number of weapons in circulation. I'm not stating that is a good or bad thing.

jamesrage said:

Who knows why he didn't have a gun.He may have never simply felt the need to own a gun.But it still doesn't change the fact the people we don't want armed are the ones who are most likely armed already.

Click to expand...

Some will be, some won't be. Arming more people in general will also inevetably arm more of the people who shouldn't have guns.

Are you really so blinkered at to be unwilling to accept that there could be some negative factors, however minor, to the principal of vastly increasing the number of people who own and carry weapons? Yet again, I'm not saying those negative factors outweight the positive ones, only that an honest assessment of the question must address both equally.

HonestJoe said:

Again, you're still making an assumption that the outcome had she been armed would almost certainly have been better but you have very limited basis on which to make that assumption. If he attacked her suddenly, there is no reason to believe she would have been able to even get her weapon before he stabbed her. I totally agree that it's possible her being armed could have resulted in a better outcome but I disagree with the assumption that it would have.

No, I'm telling you that most Americans don't own firearms (and so by definition don't carry them) (Gun Ownership and Use in America). Of those who do, I suggest a significant proportion don't regularly carry firearms on their person (though that seems to be harder to find clear figures on).

The fact is that a move to the position of all Americans carrying firearms (or indeed other weapons) would mean a huge increase in the overall number of weapons in circulation. I'm not stating that is a good or bad thing.

Some will be, some won't be. Arming more people in general will also inevetably arm more of the people who shouldn't have guns.

Are you really so blinkered at to be unwilling to accept that there could be some negative factors, however minor, to the principal of vastly increasing the number of people who own and carry weapons? Yet again, I'm not saying those negative factors outweight the positive ones, only that an honest assessment of the question must address both equally.

Click to expand...

Who exactly is suggesting that all Americans should be armed or that we should be flooding the streets with more weapons? You keep setting up silly nonsense arguments to defeat...and you cant even defeat your own silly nonsense arguments.

Look...Americans citizens have FOREVER had the right to keep and bear arms. Private citizens carry daily. Your 'concerns' are simple minded and silly.

Douglas_Smith said:

This is just one instance when the armed man had the necessary experience and control of his weapon to use it to good effect. How does this one instance measure in comparison to the many reported cases of people not using their weapons for good reasons?

Click to expand...

The guy did the right thing. It's important to remember that his rights were "infringed" by requiring him to get a permit and know how to use his weapon.

What the headline doesn't say is "Person stabbed by armed criminal." Which is also important to remember.

HonestJoe said:

Again, you're still making an assumption that the outcome had she been armed would almost certainly have been better but you have very limited basis on which to make that assumption. If he attacked her suddenly, there is no reason to believe she would have been able to even get her weapon before he stabbed her. I totally agree that it's possible her being armed could have resulted in a better outcome but I disagree with the assumption that it would have.

No, I'm telling you that most Americans don't own firearms (and so by definition don't carry them) (Gun Ownership and Use in America). Of those who do, I suggest a significant proportion don't regularly carry firearms on their person (though that seems to be harder to find clear figures on).

The fact is that a move to the position of all Americans carrying firearms (or indeed other weapons) would mean a huge increase in the overall number of weapons in circulation. I'm not stating that is a good or bad thing.

Some will be, some won't be. Arming more people in general will also inevetably arm more of the people who shouldn't have guns.

Are you really so blinkered at to be unwilling to accept that there could be some negative factors, however minor, to the principal of vastly increasing the number of people who own and carry weapons? Yet again, I'm not saying those negative factors outweight the positive ones, only that an honest assessment of the question must address both equally.

Click to expand...

WTF is your point, are you ever going to make it? I know where jamesrage stands, what about you? Are you for citizens owning guns or not?

American said:

WTF is your point, are you ever going to make it? I know where jamesrage stands, what about you? Are you for citizens owning guns or not?

Click to expand...

I honestly don't know. I don't think it's anything like as simple a question as is being implied (which is part of my point).

My main point was that you can't assume that had this woman been armed, the outcome of this incident would have necessarily been any better and that the easier you make it for law abiding citizens to own and carry guns, you can't avoid making it easier you make it for the non-law abiding and all the people in-between who none of us would feel especially comfortable carrying guns. I'm suggesting that if you really want an honest discussion on the various questions surrounding private gun ownership, you need to have an honest assessment of all the factors.