and an evil person attacks with a knife the only thing you can do is..

‘Run, run, run’: Chaos at a Sydney mall as 6 people stabbed to death, and the suspect fatally shot

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2024/04/13/man-stabbed-death-5-people-sydney-shopping-center-was-fatally-shot-by-police/

In before, "It would have been much worse if he had a gun."

 

In before, "It would have been much worse if he had a gun."

 

One life lost to knife violence is too much and unacceptable.
Range too far. Barrel too hot.

They said the officer that shot the suspect dead is a "hero"

How nice.

Really wonderful to know that when seconds count, the "hero" is minutes away......maybe.

I'm sure the family of the victims and the 9 month old baby in the hospital and it's dead mother feel just hunky dory with a warm feeling about all of this.

Aloha snackbar got yeeted by a woman. No 77 virgins for him.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Aloha snackbar got yeeted by a woman. No 77 virgins for him.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Why you talking baby like Nicki Minaj?

In before, "It would have been much worse if he had a gun."

 

Do you think it would not have been worse if he had a gun?

Do you think it would not have been worse if he had a gun?

It would have been worse if he had a box of dynamite, or a truck load of cobras, or ....

You always miss the point.  Hence the ample number of Swooshes in your collection.

Let me explain it for you -- I'm sure not for the first time.

Gun control promises safety from violence, especially murder.  But, gun laws don't stop killings (e.g. these mass knife murders).  What gun laws do is take away the ability (and right) from everyone to defend themselves against a lunatic going on a stabbing spree.

So, is it better because the attacker didn't have a gun, or is it worse because nobody else was allowed to have a gun?  How many lives could have been saved if only one law abiding person had a gun on them and stopped the attacker long before the police were called?

You accuse us of seeing everything as black & white, yet you can't turn your focus anywhere other than the attacker.  Try focusing on the intended victims and how they might have lived if they had only been carrying a firearm.

It would have been worse if he had a box of dynamite, or a truck load of cobras, or ....

You always miss the point.  Hence the ample number of Swooshes in your collection.

Let me explain it for you -- I'm sure not for the first time.

Gun control promises safety from violence, especially murder.  But, gun laws don't stop killings (e.g. these mass knife murders).  What gun laws do is take away the ability (and right) from everyone to defend themselves against a lunatic going on a stabbing spree.

So, is it better because the attacker didn't have a gun, or is it worse because nobody else was allowed to have a gun?  How many lives could have been saved if only one law abiding person had a gun on them and stopped the attacker long before the police were called?

You accuse us of seeing everything as black & white, yet you can't turn your focus anywhere other than the attacker.  Try focusing on the intended victims and how they might have lived if they had only been carrying a firearm.

Vid shows people about 15 feet from the attacker and they ran. Imagine a parent with their child who cannot run as fast.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Vid shows people about 15 feet from the attacker and they ran. Imagine a parent with their child who cannot run as fast.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I can.  My heart is breaking about what happened.  One of the most happiest moments in my life right now is baby-sitting my 6 month old GREAT Grandson   (yes, I got married very young.)

I keep thinking of the incident and I keep seeing my great grandsons smiling, beautiful face.

I can.  My heart is breaking about what happened.  One of the most happiest moments in my life right now is baby-sitting my 6 month old GREAT Grandson   (yes, I got married very young.)

I keep thinking of the incident and I keep seeing my great grandsons smiling, beautiful face.

And our lawmakers want u disarmed against a younger and stronger evil person.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

And our lawmakers want u disarmed against a younger and stronger evil person.

it's hard to justify the cost of all the federal and local law enforcement agencies if half the time they only get calls to report on the bad guy getting shot.  Those cases almost solve themselves. You know who shot him, and you have a good idea why. 

 

What my concern was, did happen. Mother gives her baby to a stranger and then gets stabbed and dies.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

It would have been worse if he had a box of dynamite, or a truck load of cobras, or ....

You always miss the point.  Hence the ample number of Swooshes in your collection.

Let me explain it for you -- I'm sure not for the first time.

Gun control promises safety from violence, especially murder.  But, gun laws don't stop killings (e.g. these mass knife murders).  What gun laws do is take away the ability (and right) from everyone to defend themselves against a lunatic going on a stabbing spree.

So, is it better because the attacker didn't have a gun, or is it worse because nobody else was allowed to have a gun?  How many lives could have been saved if only one law abiding person had a gun on them and stopped the attacker long before the police were called?

You accuse us of seeing everything as black & white, yet you can't turn your focus anywhere other than the attacker.  Try focusing on the intended victims and how they might have lived if they had only been carrying a firearm.

No, you miss my point. The whole reason that it is stupid to attack the statement that it would have been worse if the person had a gun is because that statement is demonstrably true. It is a fallacious position to take and it makes the person saying it look dishonest or stupid (or both) because you come of as denying something that is plainly true. A good response is not to mock the statement but to acknowledge it is true and explain why that despite the gun enabling someone to take more lives it can also enable someone to stop the life taking as well.

SWOOSH!

No, you miss my point. The whole reason that it is stupid to attack the statement that it would have been worse if the person had a gun is because that statement is demonstrably true. It is a fallacious position to take and it makes the person saying it look dishonest or stupid (or both) because you come of as denying something that is plainly true. A good response is not to mock the statement but to acknowledge it is true and explain why that despite the gun enabling someone to take more lives it can also enable someone to stop the life taking as well.

SWOOSH!

If you/they wanna play that game, then if any of the victims had a gun, they could have stopped it in 2 seconds. And the wheel goes round and round and round.  This is why "if the attacker had a gun" is a stupid statement for anyone to make. It's a 1 sided anti 2a statement.

If you/they wanna play that game, then if any of the victims had a gun, they could have stopped it in 2 seconds. And the wheel goes round and round and round.  This is why "if the attacker had a gun" is a stupid statement for anyone to make. It's a 1 sided anti 2a statement.

You're repeating my point that he replied to.  It's a point he completely ignored as usual as he again repeats his point as if that makes it less wrong.

You can't teach a pig to sing ...

You always miss the point.  Hence the ample number of Swooshes in your collection.

Let me explain it for you -- I'm sure not for the first time.

i... s it better because the attacker didn't have a gun, or is it worse because nobody else was allowed to have a gun?  How many lives could have been saved if only one law abiding person had a gun on them and stopped the attacker long before the police were called?

He wants to argue, and his hypothetical "it would have been worse" only works if evertyhing else remains the same.  He ignores the alternatives.

One-dimensional pontificating.  It is "demonstrably true" that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.

No, you miss my point. The whole reason that it is stupid to attack the statement that it would have been worse if the person had a gun is because that statement is demonstrably true. It is a fallacious position to take and it makes the person saying it look dishonest or stupid (or both) because you come of as denying something that is plainly true. A good response is not to mock the statement but to acknowledge it is true and explain why that despite the gun enabling someone to take more lives it can also enable someone to stop the life taking as well.

SWOOSH!

You offered no supporting information to demonstrate that statement as true.

You offered no supporting information to demonstrate that statement as true.

Do you think you could kill more people with a knife than a gun?

Do you think you could kill more people with a knife than a gun?

Are you assuming everyone else is unarmed -- i.e. not carrying a firearm?  Because in that case, knife or gun won't matter.  They'll be stopped at approximately the same body count if enough people are prepared.