“James Vernon was teaching a chess class with 16 children at Morton Public Library when 19-year-old Dustin Brown entered the room with two knives,” Illinois’ startribune.com reports. “‘I tried to talk to him. I tried to settle him down,’ he said. ‘I didn’t, but I did deflect his attention’ from the children ‘and calmed him a bit. I asked him if he was from Morton, did he go to high school. I asked what his problem was. He said his life sucks.’ Vernon said the man backed away as he got closer to him, but he was able to put himself between Brown and the room’s door, with the children hiding under the tables behind him.” And then . . .

Vernon said Brown responded by slashing him with a knife . . .

Vernon, a retired Caterpillar Inc. employee, told the newspaper he remembered the knife-fight training the Army had given him. Despite his cuts, Vernon contended he won his “90 seconds of combat” with Brown, “but I felt like I lost the war.” He suffered two cut arteries and a tendon in his left hand as he blocked Brown’s knife swipe.

Vernon, saying he was “bleeding pretty good” at the time, held the suspect until a library employee arrived to remove the knives, and kept the man pinned until police officers and paramedics arrived.

In another report, the septuagenarian hero echoed the sentiment soon to be expressed by the anti-gun crowd (if they could be bothered to comment on a story bereft of “gun violence”): “Had he brought a firearm instead, ‘It would’ve been a different story.'” Oh sure, now they’ll comment . . .

On the flip side, if Vernon had been carrying a defensive firearm, he could have shot the young man who was bummed that “I failed my mission to kill everyone.” A ballistic solution would have saved taxpayers considerable cash, removed a threat to innocent life (hopefully forever), limited Vernon’s medical bills, served as a warning to other mass killers and kept ServPro at bay.

To which the antis would reply: an aarmed Vernon might have shot a child! Which would be way more like and worse than 16 kids getting butchered by a knife-wielding maniac. Obviously. [h/t BH]

27 Responses to It Should Have Been a Defensive Gun Use: Army Vet Gets Cut Saving 16 Children Edition

  1. Anti-gun has no gripe here. In a way it was all in their favor. No guns, children saved, weapon was a knife. If they are stupid enough to open their mouths, (which I suspect they are) they deserve a good butt-kicking.

  2. Vets. In my experience they continue serving their communities long after their enlistments end.

    In my training I was told straight up that if it came to blades I was to expect to get cut. It was part of the price to stay in the fight.

    Good job soldier.

    • I was told that also. During training one instructor said, “in a knife fight, pick where you are going to get cut.” Well, how about I pick nowhere?

      • Are you a ninja? Or just a keyboard commando? Granted you might be carrying, but if someone pulls a knife on you at 3-5 feet, you wont have time to clear leather, and acting in a defensive manner will be your only real option. After you fend off the initial attack, you might have time to bring a pistol to a party.

        Knife fights dont happen in real life like they do in the movies. They taught us the same thing in the Marines. Pick where you want to get cut, incap the attacker as fast as possible, by any means necessary. I had a karate instructor (5th degree black belt) that thought this was foolish until I challenged him. Ill take the rubber knife, you try and take it away from me. I “cut” him everytime win or lose on my part. I was a lowly blue belt, I had no physical size difference as he was 6’6″ (Im 6’7″) but I did out weigh him by about 50 pounds.

  3. THIS old guy should get a medal. And I bet living in Illinois he hasn’t considered legal carry(which may be banned at the library). A great American hero…

    • Carrying is banned in public libraries. If he were carrying there he would risk an arrest, and it wouldn’t be for trespassing, though, they’d probably try to pin that conviction on him, too. I’m sure the anti-gun crowd can feel that they won because Brown didn’t bring a gun into a gun-free zone, THE LAW WORKS!!!

  4. Brave man. Well done, sir. Can we get a pool going as to when he will get a White House invite? I got never under Obama.

  5. and Illinois law specifically identifies public libraries as “gun free zones” and it is illegal for an Illinois concealed carry permit holder to carry a firearm in the library.

    He can leave it locked up in his car in the library parking lot though.

  6. This is where the Antiguan crew has no moral standing. If fact they’re worst than the perp. Boggles the the mind. And at some point one ignores them.

  7. Gun-free zone, eh? The state and library should pay for all his hospital bills and then a handsome settlement for his injuries since they forced this law-abiding citizen to unconstitutionally be disarmed and forced to use less effective means of self defense when having a firearm would have likely lessened or prevented the injuries he sustained had he been armed in the same situation. If he time to talk the aggressors down, then he certain had time to draw and shoot.

    Unconstitutional laws and gun free zones causing more bloodshed than they stop as usual, yet they still persist.

  8. “I asked what his problem was. He said his life sucks.”

    I’ll bet it sucks even more now, going to prison with a reputation of having his knives taken away and his ass kicked by an unarmed old man.

  9. “and kept ServPro at bay.” Whether the victim is stabbed or the perp is ventilated, ServPro will have a mess to clean up.

  10. when you try to deny obvious statements just because they happen to go against your ideology, it makes you look petty and irrational. the example would be “if he had brought a firearm it would have been much worse” that is inarguablely true yet try to side step that as a fact. don’t. it weakens anything you say in reference to it. instead we should acknowledge unfortunate facts and counter with facts that support our point of view, as you did with a defensive firearm could have saved even him from harm also inarguable yet a fact. i just don’t want our side to be able to be proven to ignore or omit facts that seem to have a negative garnishment for our views. I also don’t think you should say the bit about even if he DID shoot a child by accident that it’s better than 16 kids getting butchered with a knife because no kids got hurt and no weapons were used to detain the attacker. which seems to make your statements irrelevant and a sort of last ditch effort for relevance. I think the point we should make is his training is what saved him as it would with a firearm. simply having hands or a gun doesn’t give you an advantage unless you are trained on them.

Leave a Reply

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