John Lott: “The fact of how this attack was stopped is only very briefly mentioned once at the very end of the piece”

comments

  1. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    Looks like the gun owner saved the day.

  2. avatar mikeb302000 says:

    I thought you weren’t supposed to “flash” a gun. Haven’t you told us that drawing a gun should only be done when you’re about to shoot it and otherwise it should stay holstered, or in the car?

    It’s really a terrible comment on society when a group of teenagers decide to rough-up a couple, but I don’t think a gun is that answer.

    1. avatar eggyknap says:

      I wonder what the answer is, then? Let them beat you up and then give them an “I’m disappointed in your behavior” look?

    2. You’re correct in thinking that “flashing” a gun is against the law. However, depending on the laws where you’re located, it is perfectly legal to “brandish” your deadly weapon in an attempt to thwart an attack (self-defense purposes), as opposed to immediately escalating the situation from not using a gun to discharging it.

      Would that not be the preferred outcome of any situation in which a gun is brandished? Are you not relieved to know that the good samaritan didn’t have to shoot anyone, and that nobody died? Personally, I’d consider that a more successful outcome than if I actually had to shoot someone.

  3. avatar Eric Cantona says:

    It looks like they took it down. why?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email