Oh, this is just precious! Apparently, the gentleman who stopped the mass murder in a bar with his own private weapon is a hero, sure, but could have been a hero if he'd have just tackled the guy or whacked him upside the head with an empty O'Doul's bottle.
Query: Had this good samaritan tackled the shooter, would he be less of a hero? Had he struck the shooter over the head with a beer bottle, would he be less of a hero? There are plenty of other examples, but the point is the same.
Brave talk from a guy sitting behind a keyboard. "Just tackle him instead! No need for icky guns!" Because we all know that a man with a gun shooting at people will be instantly subdued the instant you put your best Hulk Hogan move on him. He will instantly drop his firearm (after engaging the safety, of course), and submit to your overpowering WWE skills. He would never even think about, nor have the ability to, turn the firearm on you.
Of course, to tackle someone safely you need to either be larger than they are, have enough momentum to overcome the weight difference if he is the bigger one, or have superior ninja skills / training that enable you to overpower your prey - something even the 6'3", 200+ pound population such as myself do not possess. In fact, in my military training, we were taught to fight up close since most people cannot effectively grapple.
As for the beer bottle, well, let's just say someone here needs to stop watching all those action movies or at least realize they're not based on reality. I've been hit in the head with harder things at faster rates of speed and have only been knocked unconscious one time. Generally, it just hurts like hell. Hurt a guy with a gun, he's likely to shoot you and while the bullet is considerably lighter than a glass bottle, it's traveling at a tremendous velocity that more than makes up for its weight.
Now, I might be misreading this guy, but the gist of his post is Yeah, this guy is a "hero" and shit, but having a gun still is a bad thing and one story isn't proof of anything. Then he spouts this drivel
The question of whether the Second Amendment will ultimately result in rampant shootings across America, or responsible gun culture that will serve better to protect than to harm, has nothing to do with whether there is a right to bear arms. It's just a way of blunting the claims of potential disaster, and making the anticipated interpretation more palatable. See, a gun saved lives. Take that, you liberals.
There's years, and years, and years of data that "blunt the claims of potential disaster". There's also that annoying 270 million guns thing that, if having a gun made people into killers, should have wiped out the population of the United States a long time ago, but hasn't. Then there are the thousands of stories of individuals protecting themselves with a gun (you know, those who didn't possess professional wrestlers' proficiency in the ring).
My preference is to see that a man saved lives. The same motivation to do something to stop harm to others existed regardless of whether the fellow carried a concealed weapon. The gun doesn't make the hero. The hero makes the hero. The fact that this person was willing to risk his own welfare to help other people sounds decidedly "liberal". Maybe only liberals should have guns?
How... elitist of you. Considering that those of us who bear arms in our own self defense are the epitome of self reliant and do so because we consider ourselves free men and women, then yes, we're liberals. Not the smooshy, "progressive" crap that has taken the nomenclature, but the true label of those who value the individual over the collective. I value freedom, and to be a free person is to understand that I control my own actions, I am responsible for the results of my labor (be it good or bad), and do not request from my fellow free citizens that they allow themselves to be chained so that I can feel "safer" or better about my inability to control my own life.
Liberty is unsafe. It is inherently dangerous. It entails risk as unending as the reward. You cannot ensure liberty for yourself by denying it to others. To truly embrace liberty, you must grant it freely to all even at the cost of a loss of the perception of security.
Or you could just take Karate lessons and hope your yellow belt is all you need to disarm a crazy man with a gun.