Guns don't stop guns from killing people. People do.

This man, unarmed, saved lives:


Moments before the first shot, James Shaw Jr. was watching a Waffle House employee wash dishes, stacking them higher and higher. When the first shot was fired, Shaw thought the tower of plates had come crashing down, he would later recount at a news conference. At 3:25 a.m. Sunday, police cars stormed toward the restaurant in the Nashville neighborhood of Antioch.

Shaw, 29, had gone to a club with his best friend on Saturday night, and afterward, the two went to a Waffle House on Bell Road but it was crowded so they drove to the one at 3571 Murfreesboro Pike.

The Metro Nashville Police Department said that the suspect, Travis Reinking, arrived in the Waffle House parking lot at 3:19 a.m. Sunday and sat in his pickup truck for about four minutes staring at the customers inside. Then he got out, wearing only a green jacket and carrying a AR-15 rifle, and fatally shot two people outside the Waffle House, police said. He then went into the restaurant and continued shooting, they said. Two more people would die. The suspect, feared to be armed and wanted for murder, has not been found.

At the news conference Sunday afternoon, Nashville police spokesman Don Aaron said that as the gunman was shooting, “a patron of the restaurant, James Shaw Jr., ran to restroom area of the Waffle House, saw that the shooting had stopped, and saw an opportunity to intervene. Mr. Shaw wrestled the rifle away from Reinking and tossed it into another part of the restaurant to end the gunfire. Mr. Shaw saved, obviously, many lives in his heroic action.”

After the third gunshot, the window burst, Shaw said, and Waffle House employees scattered. Looking back, he saw someone lying on the ground at the door. He jumped toward the restroom, he would later tell the Tennessean newspaper, and stood behind a swivel door, where a bullet grazed his arm.

That’s when Shaw decided to act.

“I kind of made up my mind, because there was no way to lock that door, that if it was going to come down to it, he was going to have to work to kill me,” he said.

When he heard the shooting stop, he rushed out.

Shaw, who works for AT&T, said the shooter was either reloading the gun or the firearm had jammed, and he wrestled it away and threw it over the counter. Still fearing for his life, Shaw said he rushed toward the front door of the restaurant, pushing the shooter out also.


https://www.washingtonpost.com...


If Waffle House employees were given guns instead of crappy waffle batter to throw at assailants, this wouldn't-a happened.


Only 3 shots. He could have planned better. Amateur.


An unlikely to jam 30 clip AR 15. The whole Waffle House could have been done without the indignity or nuisance of getting stuck after 3 shots.


Lets continue allowing just about anyone to be able to get these guns. Easier than trying to buy beer.


Because, as told us by the NRA, its people, not guns.


NRA snowflakes need heavy artillery. This guy needed courage.


terp said:
You are all way behind the times. Try to keep up!

 The article states that "There have been more than 50 homicides in London so far in 2018". It does not state that all of those were committed with a knife, but let's assume they were. That article was published in April, so that's 50 murders over three months.

At parkland, the shooter murdered 17 people in six minutes.

In Las Vegas, the shooter murdered 58 people (and injured 851) in 10 minutes.

Given all this, surely terp's point is that the violence in London would be far worse were guns readily available. And I agree with him. We are behind in the country -- while places like the UK are challenged by people with knives killing tens of people per month, we argue over whether the ability to kill scores of people in minutes is a constitutional right. Behind indeed.



That's not my point.  My point is that there are diminishing returns when trying to nerf up your country.  

Knives are now the target in London.  




terp said:
That's not my point.  My point is that there are diminishing returns when trying to nerf up your country.  
Knives are now the target in London.  

 Because more guns means less gun violence?


dave23 said:


terp said:
That's not my point.  My point is that there are diminishing returns when trying to nerf up your country.  
Knives are now the target in London.  
 Because more guns means less gun violence?

No.  My point is that you can legislate the violence out of people.   Banning the tools(in this case knives) is not necessarily going to solve the problem. 


terp said:

No.  My point is that you can legislate the violence out of people.   Banning the tools(in this case knives) is not necessarily going to solve the problem. 

If you look at the data and facts, you are (mostly) wrong. Countries that have banned or severely limited access to guns have much less gun violence. It's easy to joke about what seems like a silly effort in London, but the facts remain.

BTW, I don't know what it means to legislate violence out of people, but that's beside the point.


dave23 said:


terp said:
No.  My point is that you can legislate the violence out of people.   Banning the tools(in this case knives) is not necessarily going to solve the problem. 
If you look at the data and facts, you are (mostly) wrong. Countries that have banned or severely limited access to guns have much less gun violence. It's easy to joke about what seems like a silly effort in London, but the facts remain.
BTW, I don't know what it means to legislate violence out of people, but that's beside the point.

 And how violent were those countries before the legislation?  


terp said:

 And how violent were those countries before the legislation?  

Well, the notion that easy access to guns is unrelated to gun violence is indeed silly. As you know, there aren't many before/after scenarios, but Australia's rate of homicide by gun has fallen by more than half over the last 25 years and overall homicides have fallen by about 25%.

How do homicide rates in countries with strict gun control laws compare with those in the US?


@terp, perhaps it depends on your definition of "solve." Legislation doesn't eliminate the problem, but it reduces it. And I see people rejecting the hope of legislation precisely because it doesn't eliminate the problem.


I do agree with the notion that Americans have a bent toward violence that other first-world, wealthy countries do not, which is all the more reason to limit access to high-capacity weapons. I disagree that the Second Amendment respects the right of anyone to have any type of armament they wish. 


Tom_Reingold said:
@terp, perhaps it depends on your definition of "solve." Legislation doesn't eliminate the problem, but it reduces it. And I see people rejecting the hope of legislation precisely because it doesn't eliminate the problem.

 Exactly.  Lots of things address or reduce problems without solving them.

Stop signs, seat belts, child-proof caps, lightning rods, screen protectors, etc.


And there is the "why make it illegal if criminals won't respect the law?" argument. And it's hilarious. Indeed, why have laws at all?


London is experiencing a significant increase in acid attacks.  Apparently gang members are using acid because it is easier to get than a firearm and more debilitating to the victim.  See:  https://www.usatoday.com/story... or http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-405...


Personally, I would prefer to confront an assailant with a firearm than a bottle of acid (as acid frequently leads to blindness and terrible damage to the skin on the face).


PS Even though these attacks are termed acid attacks, I understand that many of the assailants use a drain cleaner (which I believe is often a base, such as lye, rather than an acid).


Tom_Reingold said:
And there is the "why make it illegal if criminals won't respect the law?" argument. And it's hilarious. Indeed, why have laws at all?

The 2nd Amendment provides each and every one of us with a “basic right” of “individual self-defense.”   Thus, outlawing bearable arms that can be used for self-defense, such as a pistol or stun-gun, violates SCOTUS precedent.  See Caetano v. Massachusetts:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/su... 

 I do not think your comment makes sense.  Especially, in light of the the fact that the right to bear arms and having the right, and ability, to defend one self are fundamental rights enshrined in our Bill of Rights.


@RealityForAll, I'm referring to an argument that some people offer which is that it's pointless to have any laws around guns since criminals don't respect laws. It's a ridiculous argument, and it's not sufficiently far from saying there's no point in having any laws.

I will not dispute that the 2nd amendment grants certain rights. That self defense is one of those is an inference. A well regulated militia doesn't strike me as an instrument of self defense.


I think the argument you are referring to is: were you to ban guns, you would only get the guns from law abiding citizens.  This would leave them unprotected from the criminals who are not likely to turn in their guns. 


Tom_Reingold said:
@RealityForAll, I'm referring to an argument that some people offer which is that it's pointless to have any laws around guns since criminals don't respect laws. It's a ridiculous argument, and it's not sufficiently far from saying there's no point in having any laws.
I will not dispute that the 2nd amendment grants certain rights. That self defense is one of those is an inference. A well regulated militia doesn't strike me as an instrument of self defense.

 Did you read the Caetano SCOTUS decision to which I linked?


Caetano link:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/su...

Please read and let me know whether you still believe that a right to self-defense is not also part of the 2nd Amendment.


I'm fine with us having different interpretations of the 2nd amendment. What I'm not fine with is the criminals don't obey law argument, and I'll note that you have not pushed that argument. Others have done so, though, including Marco Rubio.

I'll read the Caetano.


Tom_Reingold said:
I'm fine with us having different interpretations of the 2nd amendment. What I'm not fine with is the criminals don't obey law argument, and I'll note that you have not pushed that argument. Others have done so, though, including Marco Rubio.
I'll read the Caetano.

 Because because bearing arms and self-defense are fundamental rights, legislators must be mindful when regulating bearable arms.  In other words, IMHO the premise of your argument is that if you ban bearable arms, or regulate them so tightly that it is almost equivalent to banning them, then individuals do NOT need their rights under the 2nd Amendment.  Clearly, this is another POV on this issue; but this POV does not comport with the 2nd Amendment and its precedents.


The thing that makes this issue tough is that both sides don't want to give an inch.   I mean the gun owners think that if they give an inch then the opposition will keep going until they start proposing the banning of knives.


terp said:
The thing that makes this issue tough is that both sides don't want to give an inch.   I mean the gun owners think that if they give an inch then the opposition will keep going until they start proposing the banning of knives.

The difference is that the threat of banning of knives is exactly what is happening in London:  https://www.usatoday.com/story...

Additionally, the anti-gun folks are focusing on the following rifle attributes in order to define an "assault weapon": 

 i.)  detachable magazine;

ii.) pistol grip

iii.) vertical forward grip

iv.) barrel shroud.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It is analogous to banning cars with racing stripes, pistol grip shifter, line lock or heimspherical heads.  Similar to cars, some firearms will often have the same power-train (in firearms the power-train would be the type of ammo used) but look markedly different.  Despite most homicides committed with handguns, the gun control demand de jour is to ban "assault weapons."  If you are trying to save the most lives why would would you focus on "assault weapons."

London seems to make asinine changes in various areas long before we here in states get around to it.  Thus, London provides us with a looking glass of the consequences, intended and unintended, of various policy changes (first affected in London).  Did anyone take a look at the London acid attack links set forth above (apparently a response to making guns and knives more difficult to obtain)?


Just as an FYI, this is a fine list of all the UK knife regulations that are already in place.

https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives


dave23 said:


terp said:
That's not my point.  My point is that there are diminishing returns when trying to nerf up your country.  
Knives are now the target in London.  
 Because more guns means less gun violence?

 Chris Rock has a gun joke in which he says something like "If you can kill 100 people with a knife, the first three are victims but the next 97 deserve to die."


if you outlaw knives, people will just kill each other with rocks. Ergo, there should be no laws restricting ownership of weapons. 


ml1 said:
if you outlaw knives, people will just kill each other with rocks. Ergo, there should be no laws restricting ownership of weapons. 

Because of the outlawing of knives in London, London gangs are now substituting drain cleaner to blind victims, permanently disfigure them and create greater victim debilitation.  See link in my earlier posting.  Is the unintended consequence of  outlawing knives (namely, acid attacks) greater than the original knife problem?


Bad people looking to commit murder and mayhem will usually find substitutes (which are often more damaging than the original arm that has been banned).


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.