Man Who took Down Seattle Shooter Gets Crowd-Funded Reward

Steve said:
Oh brother. We may as well be playing dungeons and dragons at this point. In the real world, it happened the way it actually happened.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


And any suggestion that what he did is morally superior or going to work every time is like playing Candy Land. In this one instance, yes it worked. Go ahead and make claims. You know as well as I do that a gun is better than mace against an armed assailant bent on mass murder.
 
wimwag said:
And any suggestion that what he did is morally superior or going to work every time is like playing Candy Land. In this one instance, yes it worked. Go ahead and make claims. You know as well as I do that a gun is better than mace against an armed assailant bent on mass murder.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? You're arguing against points that literally no one has made.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
wimwag said:
Then again, maybe he goes to tackle the guy and gets thumped across the nose and eyes with the butt of the gun and the shooter reloads and continues his spree, shooting the would be tackler first.
Click to expand...

That's moving into a bit of fantasy argument. There is no action anybody could have taken that maybe could not have gone wrong.
 
It's called a pre emptive strike, Steve. I know your playbook. Your next move was to introduce the straw man, then rail on and on about the supposed moral superiority of not using a gun.
 
wimwag said:
Nope. The above was my point.
Click to expand...

That is above.

And above that.

If someone had a gun. He could of missed shot a baby and then been shot himself.

See easy to make up stuff.

If you want to make a point about defensive gun carry. You need to wait and make it where there was actual defensive gun carry. And even then it is a bit contrived because we know you are cherry picking.

Eg.
http://m.couriermail.com.au/news/qu...-shopping-centre/story-fnihsrf2-1226944543308

Ha ha. See no guns.

Or something like that.
 
drop bear said:
And even then it is a bit contrived because we know you are cherry picking.
Click to expand...

And this thread wasnt?

There are many things that "could have" happened. That doesn't mean what did happen was the best approach. Just because it worked don't make it the best. We could play what it games forever. Given the choice more people then not would choose to confront an armed killer with arms themselves.
 
...for the same reason an armed killer arms himself with guns.

My main point was actually that it was cool people were paying for his wedding, but secondarily that what most martial artists might think of as the sort of self-defense they teach--without firearms--was used here and worked. No one is trying to make a general case of it. In this case, it worked. A local cop defended himself against a knife attack using a technique I'd disapprove of. He agreed--he was just caught by surprise, and reacted. It worked. He's alive. We're all happy.
 
wimwag said:
It's called a pre emptive strike, Steve. I know your playbook. Your next move was to introduce the straw man, then rail on and on about the supposed moral superiority of not using a gun.
Click to expand...
LOL. Do you understand that arguing against points that you admit no one is making is an intentional red herring? You use terms that you clearly don't understand. Throwing a term like straw man around when you obviously don't know what it means makes it hard to have a good conversation.

My play book is to just hold the mirror up for you. You do all the work yourself.

arnisador said:
...for the same reason an armed killer arms himself with guns.

My main point was actually that it was cool people were paying for his wedding, but secondarily that what most martial artists might think of as the sort of self-defense they teach--without firearms--was used here and worked. No one is trying to make a general case of it. In this case, it worked. A local cop defended himself against a knife attack using a technique I'd disapprove of. He agreed--he was just caught by surprise, and reacted. It worked. He's alive. We're all happy.
Click to expand...
I remember a thread a while back about guns and such. I get the idea that for cops, martials arts are for when the gun is empty. I can appreciate the difference. But, for anyone who trains in a martial art style specifically for self defense, isn't this validation that there is some value to it? What I mean is, this guy planned for an emergency. He was prepared. And it worked. I don't know whether he has formal martial arts training or not, but he certainly thought about what he would do in an emergency, and his preparation kicked in.

I understand that, in some cases, being armed with a pistol is an advantage. But, not always. As I mentioned earlier, there are times when people who are carrying do not even draw their weapons, or may not fire a round. The gun is a tool.

And, conversely, we are not helpless without them.
 
arnisador said:
...for the same reason an armed killer arms himself with guns.
Click to expand...
Right and since they already have them we shouldn't limit our abilities to defend ourselves
My main point was actually that it was cool people were paying for his wedding, but secondarily that what most martial artists might think of as the sort of self-defense they teach--without firearms--was used here and worked. No one is trying to make a general case of it. In this case, it worked. A local cop defended himself against a knife attack using a technique I'd disapprove of. He agreed--he was just caught by surprise, and reacted. It worked. He's alive. We're all happy.
Click to expand...

I'm glad it worked I hope this is a trend that people will stop at a ding by and actually take action to stop these people.
 
From the Nevada shooting:

The pair ran to Walmart where Jerad Miller fired off one round and told people to get out, McMahill said.A shopper, identified as Joseph Wilcox, told his friend he was going to confront the suspects.

"He was carrying a concealed weapon, and he immediately and heroically moved towards the position of Jerad Miller. Upon completing that action, he did not realize that Amanda Miller was with Jerad Miller," McMahill told reporters.

He continued: "As soon as he began to confront Jerad Miller with his firearm, Amanda Miller removed her firearm and shot him one time in the ribs area where he immediately collapsed."

Wilcox, 31, "died attempting to protect others," Gillespie said.
Click to expand...

Credit to this guy for being both willing and prepared to help. He had the right tool to have a chance to make a difference there. But the bottom line is that if he hadn't had the weapon then he wouldn't have been able to even try anything and there would've been one less death. Let's separate respect for his willingness to risk his life to help from acknowledgment of the ultimate effect--one additional casualty. The NRA is pushing a "good guy with a gun" fantasy that rarely plays out that way in real life, except for LEOs. You'd need a firearm (or other ranged weapon) to have a chance to do something in this situation, barring very fortuitous positioning, but that doesn't mean it will help--what helped is a large number of well-equipped, well-trained, well-coordinated LEOs.

There's just no telling what will work when. As I always tell my students when they're very impressed by a technique: "Nothing is magic." Nothing works every time.
 
Steve said:
Awesome young man. I wish I hadn't read the comments, though. Many of the comments reminded me of this place, and it made me sad.
Click to expand...

I made the same mistake. I should have known better given the domain name and intended audience.
 
arnisador said:
From the Nevada shooting:



Credit to this guy for being both willing and prepared to help. He had the right tool to have a chance to make a difference there. But the bottom line is that if he hadn't had the weapon then he wouldn't have been able to even try anything and there would've been one less death. Let's separate respect for his willingness to risk his life to help from acknowledgment of the ultimate effect--one additional casualty. The NRA is pushing a "good guy with a gun" fantasy that rarely plays out that way in real life, except for LEOs. You'd need a firearm (or other ranged weapon) to have a chance to do something in this situation, barring very fortuitous positioning, but that doesn't mean it will help--what helped is a large number of well-equipped, well-trained, well-coordinated LEOs.

There's just no telling what will work when. As I always tell my students when they're very impressed by a technique: "Nothing is magic." Nothing works every time.
Click to expand...
Except there are countless cases where good guy with a gun did work out well. This one didn't because it wasn't typical. You don't typically have more then one mass shooter. He played the odds and lost. Had it been me a trained officer with a gun chances are I'd have lost too. Now I do train to always look for more I use the if there I'd one shooter then there's two. If you see two shooters there are three ect. But even in active shooter training I've missed people. I get shot often in training it's a risk I'm willing to take.
 
crushing said:
I made the same mistake. I should have known better given the domain name and intended audience.
Click to expand...
Domain name has nothing to do with it any site will have Waka do comments that's why you shouldn't read them unless you want to have a good laugh at the crazies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

tutorial on "Stand your Ground" law from legal expert...

Previous Thread

The godfather of all airsoft guns

Next Thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top