Nonsense. How many people were shot by legal firearms bearers in the Giffords shooting? None. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting#cite_note-complaint-7 "Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it. Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the fourteenth injury. Loughner was tackled to the ground by Bill Badger, a 74-year-old retired United States Army Colonel who had been shot himself. Loughner was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. Zamudio was a CCW holder and had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not draw his firearm." When will your bullshit stop?
Combine those, and you get a French-American professor! http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/24/europe/france-train-shooting/index.html "Mark Moogalian ... French-American academic ... tried to take away the suspect's rifle but the man shot Moogalian in the neck with a Luger pistol ... born in Durham, North Carolina ... moved to France as an adult."
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/01/friendly_firearms.html When will you address the issue of multiple shooters in a confined space? Ah, an insult. The sign of a man bereft of an argument.
Really? A Slate article, which confirms that the armed citizen never drew his weapon? And further reports that he would never even have attempted to help, had he not been armed? So, there were no multiple shooters there, despite you efforts to imagine them. As for a combined space shoot-out, you appear to prefer the mass slaughter of passengers, over the possibility that someone else might shoot the terrorist. It's not a desirable event, but preferable to dozens of dead innocents. I've made my points. You've ignored them. Your bullshit continues, even deepens.
Odd that you missed out this bit: "Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky." "That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun." Really, the bullshit would be from the poster that still can't rationally discuss the likely consequences of multiple shooters in a crowded railcar. How "predictable".
I can rationally say that the likely consequences of a single terrorist shooter in that railcar would have been the deaths of most, if not all, of the occupants. You appear to prefer those deaths, to the gunman being shot before he could unleash the carnage. You presume that a legal firearm holder would not assess the situation before acting, but would open fire indiscriminately & shoot more people than the gunman. There is no rational alternative to your threadjack. Again, Thank God for the Americans who acted. You would have been hiding under your seat, until the terrorist got to you & shot you. Your choice. Out on your knees.
A "predictable" strawman. There is no threadjack in discussing the likely consequences of multiple shooters in a crowded railcar and noting that this incident was resolved by unarmed individuals. I see you are on a roll with your strawmen. How "predictable".
It is your interpretation that it was a jibe. The fact that you are unable to participate in a rational conversation about this without resorting to insults and strawmen is the thing that is predictable. Oh well.
What was it then? Some bon mot you could brag about to your friends, if you have any? Look in the mirror. We've yet to see your brilliant solution for preventing a gunman from spraying a captive audience in an enclosed space with automatic weapon's fire. Wait until he runs out od ammo?
Ah, another strawman. Well done! I've already made my point - namely that the NRA's "more guns" stance isn't necessarily the best approach and that sometimes a lack of multiple shooters is an advantage, especially in a confined space like this incident took place in. Incidents sometimes do get resolved without resorting to "more guns", hard though that seems to be for you to grasp. You? All we get a load of crap about how discussing that is "hijacking the thread". Oh and some strawmen for good measure. Your contribution to this thread has been pathetic.
Your point is irrelevant to this thread, & a dodge, using weasel words such as "isn't necessarily" and "sometimes". You have not answered the question I asked, in response to your NRA snark. I repeat it: What is your solution for preventing a gunman from spraying a captive audience in an enclosed space with automatic weapon's fire. Wait until he runs out of ammo?" You suck. Two can play this game.
There was no NRA snark. I merely pointed out that, contrary to your and the NRA's position, "more guns" isn't necessarily the answer and can actually make situations worse. How did this gunman get on "spraying of his captive audience in an enclosed space with automatic weapons fire"? Lots of dead, presumably?
His rifle jammed; his pistol did not. At least get your facts right even if you're incapable of discussing the incident rationally. Note to you and the NRA: this incident was resolved, without loss of life, by unarmed civilians.
He was trying to clear the AK-47, when he was jumped. Had the Americans not acted, he would have had plenty of time to do this. You are irrational/delusional on this issue, and probably others. Seek help.
Ah, another insult. I am not sure whether you've posted more insults or more strawmen on this thread. It must be a close run thing. Either way, it's truly indicative of a man either without an argument or incapable of positing one.
Just some advice. Either take your meds, or cease taking more than you've been prescribed. Meanwhile, in this back & forth, it's obvious that you cannot answer my question. You have no alternative, other than pure luck, for preventing mass slaughter in a train car.
Ah, another insult. I am not sure whether you've posted more insults or more strawmen on this thread, although this post means insults are probably in the lead at this point. Either way, it's truly indicative of a man either without an argument or incapable of positing one.
They appear to have rendered you incapable of answering my question. Quel dommage. Take your time. Think hard. Don't hurt your head.
A two-goal lead for insults... Either way, it's truly indicative of a man either without an argument or incapable of positing one. A strawman next perhaps?