Woman With a Gun Stops Deadly Knife Attack in Michigan Meijer Store

knife attack

Shutterstock

As we’re constantly told by some of the nation’s smartest minds (here, here, here and here), the idea of a “good guy with a gun” stopping violence and saving lives is a silly fantasy pushed by radical gun nuts and the NRA in order to justify their sick obsession with perpetuating civilian firearm ownership.

Except it isn’t. We’ve recounted literally hundreds of examples of successful defensive gun uses here for anyone to read. And ours is by no means a complete catalogue of all of the instances of armed individuals stopping attacks on themselves and others and saving lives. It happens literally hundreds of thousands of times a year.

It happened again yesterday in a Michigan Meijer store where a woman carrying a concealed firearm witnessed a knife attack.

A 85-year-old man was fatally stabbed Wednesday at Meijer in Adrian. …

Police were able to take the suspect into custody without incident.

The suspect was a 29-year-old man from Adrian, according to a news release.

Emrick said that a woman with a concealed pistol license witnessed the stabbing taking place. She drew her pistol on the suspect and ordered him to the ground. The woman held the suspect at gunpoint until police arrived.

It isn’t clear what caused the attack and there’s no way to know how many more people might have been hurt or killed if the unidentified woman hadn’t used her lawfully carried handgun to stop the man with the knife and hold him until police could arrive.

Once again, an armed citizen protected herself and probably others. She was her own first responder, minutes before police ever got there.

But remember…no one needs to carry a firearm and that “good guy with a gun” thing is just a dangerous gunslinger fantasy.

 

comments

  1. avatar B says:

    Good for her!

    1. avatar Debbie W. says:

      If she did not have her conceal carry she would have had to stand and watch. That’s why I don’t have any use for such a permit and it needs to go. Already a background check to purchase and with that there should be no need for an additional permission slip to carry open or concealed.

  2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Is he out on bail yet ?

    1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      Bail is racist /s

    2. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      Michigan is still behind on the bail reform. Good thing too.

    3. avatar Paul says:

      George Soros is on it, the suspect should be out by Friday evening.

      1. avatar Fox News says:

        There’s no need to bring George Soros into this. Move along.

        1. avatar Bob in IN says:

          Most people wont get this.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I do. The FoxNews slide into the Left is accelerating.

        3. avatar 4808 N says:

          I’m very disappointed with Harris Faulkner.

  3. avatar Nonips says:

    Great most of my family have concealed carry very glad they do, but I don’t believe that the government has the right to register or license guns by our Constitution as Written it is not for the government to know any Americans guns or how many or what kind it is illegal for the government state or federal to charge, anyone any amount, or make us register license our guns

    1. avatar seatex says:

      You are correct. They also do not have the right to make us wear masks or pay federal income taxes, but…

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Wait, now, didn’t we pass a constitutional amendment authorizing income tax?

        1. avatar seatex says:

          Yes, the progressives did do that, because the founders did not give the federal government that direct taxing power. The federal government could only derive taxes from the states indirectly based on population. Tax was equal for every citizen – not based on individual incomes.

        2. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          Larry, I don’t think we did. How many citizens vote to tax themselves? The Swamp (not much more than a flooded pond at the time) did that.

        3. avatar LifeSavor says:

          Article XV1

          “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

        4. avatar Texican says:

          If you look a the history it wasn’t lawfully passed.

        5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Gadsden Flag,

          How many citizens vote to tax themselves?

          You would be utterly shocked and amazed at how many people knowingly and willingly vote to tax themselves, especially well-off do-gooder types.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You would be utterly shocked and amazed at how many people knowingly and willingly vote to tax themselves, especially well-off do-gooder types.”

          Especially in “Blue” states.

        7. avatar AC says:

          The 16th Amendment was never properly ratified as was uncovered by Bill Benson’s research that led to his book, “The Law That Never Was”. But in addition to that, it was also ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916) that;
          Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 103 (1916) (Entire text of ruling)

          “…by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged..” (emphasis added)

          “conferred no new power of taxation” – In other words, what the government could not tax before the amendment it still could not tax after the amendment.

          And maybe that’s why there have been so many IRS Commissioners as well as Congressmen and Senators that have admitted that “the income tax is voluntary”.

          “The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself” – Sun Tzu

          Yes we all have Rights in America that can not be taken away. However, we can also voluntarily surrender these Rights and/or agree to convert them to government granted privileges and then be subjected to having to accept the government regulations and payment of fees that goes along with that… as well as accepting the possibility that the government might later decide to terminate that privilege.

          The ignorant are ignorant of their ignorance.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “And maybe that’s why there have been so many IRS Commissioners as well as Congressmen and Senators that have admitted that “the income tax is voluntary”.”

          Voluntarism grows out of the barrel of a gun?

          What government means by “voluntary” is they don’t send revenue agents to your front door to collect taxes.

        9. avatar Cloudbuster says:

          It was also advertised to the population as something that only a few of the very rich would have to pay. You can always tell when a politician is lying: his lips are moving.

        10. avatar GS650G says:

          And it was only 2 percent. That didn’t take long to change. SSI was voluntary too and the death benefit was a return of money paid in. They changed that a few years into a 255 payment.

          All these deals are sold one way and quickly morphed into monsters.

    2. avatar Roger J says:

      For quite a while the Constitution has just simply been ignored by government, courts at all levels, and politicians of each party. Sometime next year there may not be a Constitution as we know it. The new one will be based on portions of the Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Venezuelan, and choice parts of the Ugandan and Democratic Republic of the Congo Constitutions.

    3. avatar Gringo Cracker says:

      Governments have powers, not rights. Citizens have rights.

  4. avatar seatex says:

    Should have dropped him! Taxpayer relief shot.

    1. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

      With the way DA’s and the like are making political statements out of those who use firearms to defend themselves and others, she’s probably better off at the moment. Otherwise she’d probably be sitting in jail right now awaiting trial.

      How far we’ve gone to admonish and punish those expressing the fight or flight response, having no further viable means of flight and engaging in fight. It’s literally found everywhere else in nature in the animal kingdom. But here, everyone who themselves are protected by some kind of lofty position of power or an armed security detail (or both), can’t fathom why anyone else would need a firearm.

      For me to take any of those shills seriously, they would have to fire their armed security and move into a seedy part of town where police response is usually measured in tens of minutes if not hours, not minutes or seconds (if at all).

      In the real-world, YOYO (you’re on your own). It’s a dangerous world with dangerous people. Those of us who know this don’t easily put up our claws, but most of us don’t have other armed folk around to protect us all the time.

    2. avatar Craig in IA says:

      “Should have dropped him!”

      Well, you can make that decision should you get the chance, which the intelligent ones around here hope will never happen to us. Then you’ll find out all about lawyers, prosecutors with agendas, legal fees, liens against your property to cover them, a night in a lockup even though you were only defending someone else, hate speech and mail directed at you, on and on.

      I applaud the chick for having the presence of mind to use her firearm in the manner that the vast majority of guns are used: Usually the mere presence of a defensive firearm causes the problem to be solved without a shot ever being fired. Once you shoot someone else, no matter the reason, your life will likely be changed and usually it is not for the better. But go ahead, take the shot, even if the perp is compliant.

  5. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Oh, please. The attacker only had a knife. That woman should have just knocked him down, and taken the knife. A gun against a knife is just disproportionate. And if the woman was too small to wrestle with the male attacker (impossible because women are the very equal of men, in all respects), she should have retreated to safety and called police to come disarm the attacker. This is all vigilante justice. We are not a civilized society if people can simply take the law into their own hands willy nilly (or nilly vanilly).

    1. avatar Dan says:

      You’re right, she should have fought him like a man in a fair fight. These broads are always trying to take the easy way out. Maybe if she offered him a BJ before the stabbing this could have all been avoided and the victim would still be alive. She’s a sick and evil person.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “You’re right, she should have fought him like a man in a fair fight. ”

        There ya’ go.

        Workers of the world, unite !
        Free the whales !
        Free the internet !
        Freeze the polar ice packs !
        Viva Max !

        1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

          Silly, you can’t do that without 3″ heels. I saw that (woman in tight skirt and heels) movie. She ripped him apart with those things, while spinning around and jumping and more spinning. Just like in Creeping Tiger Stalking Dragon. Saw that too.
          I need need shoes like that=superpower shoes.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Victoria. I believe it was in Texas. A woman killed a man with a high heel shoe. Hollywood has nothing on reality.

          I knew a woman that killed a man with one of those honking big bar ash trays back when smoking was still allowed in bars.

      2. avatar Paul says:

        Unfortunately, with all the fantasy nonsense in the entertainment channels today, a lot of people would go along with requiring this woman to physically confront an armed murderer – without her gun.

        Let me go watch another re-run of a unarmed 90 pound bull dyke beating the snot out of thirty or fifty 200 pound men carrying swords. It’s so lifelike!!

      3. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        Jezebel.com reliably informs me that women are just as tough and strong as men and don’t need no man’s help.

    2. avatar The Rookie says:

      Nonsense. *Clearly*, she should have soiled herself and/or announced that she had an STD. That will stop an attack every single time.

      Oh, and then she should have taught the attacker that stabbing comes from a place of privilege, and reinforces the patriarchy.

      1. avatar Dan says:

        That only works if he doesn’t have the same STD. If he does then it’s game on. As for her soiling herself, yeah that’s pretty shitty but sodomy is a dirty business. We all know the risks and willingly accept them.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Nonsense. *Clearly*, she should have soiled herself and/or announced that she had an STD. That will stop an attack every single time. Oh, and then she should have taught the attacker that stabbing comes from a place of privilege, and reinforces the patriarchy.”

        Finally, someone “gets it”. Wet panties have been an effective deterrent since panties were invented. The STD claim is a veritable force field.

    3. avatar MarkPA says:

      I take your response to be satirical; nevertheless, just before reading it, I had a serious self-defense question that resonated.

      If the assailant continued to hold the knife in his hand then he continued to constitute an imminent threat to life. That jeopardy existed could reasonably be inferred from the obvious fact that he had just knifed the 85-yo man. This seems clear-cut.

      She drew a firearm on the assailant.

      I imagine that the assailant probably dropped the knife at that point. If so, he would have CEASED to constitute an imminent threat.

      If, after dropping the knife, he MIGHT have fled. Had he done so, I wonder if she would have lost the privilege of using lethal force in a lawful attempt to arrest his flight so as to aid the police in taking him into custody.

      The DA probably isn’t going to charge her with aggravated assault since she didn’t actually shoot him. However, she might well have shot him if he fled. If he had dropped the knife, then the charge could have been manslaughter.

      IF my take on the law were correct here, then we the PotG have to think about how far we are willing to press our luck with the legal system in such a scenario.

      – risk an aggravated assault charge?
      – risk a manslaughter charge?

      1. avatar Lunknard says:

        She stopped the threat. She had no responsibility to apprehend the perp. Not sure what the law in Michigan reads, but I wouldn’t shoot an unarmed perp who is running away.

        1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

          Sadly, you are probably correct, legally, which is a darn shame.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        The issue of armed detainment by a citizen seems, as so much does, to depend on jurisdictions. My pinhead thinking is that attempting to detain another person through presentation of a gun is a matter of bluff, more than it is a legal standing to use deadly force to prevent escape.

        So, as always with “the law”….it depends.

      3. avatar GunnyGene says:

        Your question regarding using force to stop a fleeing felon: That’s legal in MS. And if this had happened in MS, the perp would be occupying a slab in the morgue.

      4. avatar EndDangerEd says:

        He plainly did NOT drop the knife until AFTER he had been shot… That’s my story and I’m stickin to it…. and he’s not talking anymore.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          My question was PURELY a hypothetical.

          I assume that he dropped the knife when he went prone under orders from the woman with the gun. But, this just doesn’t matter to my question.

          Working out the problem from the 5 principles of privilege to use deadly force in self-defense, isn’t it the case that you can’t shoot a fleeing – UN-armed – murderer to “seize” him for the police?

          If that’s the case (in the applicable jurisdiction) then holding at gunpoint is merely a bluff (as another commenter pointed out).

        2. avatar Cloudbuster says:

          Grocery store. Lots of potential witnesses and cameras. Rule 1 may be “Don’t talk to the police,” but Rule 0 is “Don’t lie to the police.”

      5. avatar Dan says:

        If he drops the knife tell him you’ll shoot him unless he picks up the knife. When he picks it up, shoot him and say that he had a knife.

  6. avatar Defens says:

    How sad that a man who’s made it through 85 years of life on this planet checks out so badly. His killer needs to spend the next 85 years behind bars, but that still won’t erase the injustice.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      That’s what I was thinking…

      If there is to be a ground shifting culture change I wish it would be that instead of what is currently is going on.

      Senior citizens respected and society caring about their well being. It is angering to see a news report about an old person punched to the ground/killed over their SS check or other property.

    2. avatar Paul says:

      Mehhh. Thinking. It’s not a “good” ending, to be sure. But, apparently, the old man didn’t suffer very long. Compare that to wasting away in a hospital bed for months.

      I’ll just concentrate on the perp, who needs to suffer far worse than his victim did.

      1. avatar Coolbreeze says:

        May you live long enough to realize the foolishness of your callous attitude toward human life and regret it. This in regard to the victim. As for the murderer, he can’t perish soon enough and his gift of life should be revoked.

    3. avatar jwm says:

      A 29yo man couldn’t take on an 85yo man without a weapon.

      Sad. Pathetic. Needs to sign up with antifa.

      1. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

        @jwm

        Looked up his booking photo…could be a poster child for AntiFa.

        He was in court back in 2013 on a “charge of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, involving force or coercion…” pled down to a lesser crime resulting in: two years probation, some court-assigned labor and had to repay his parents for his legal defense.

        I wonder what “triggered” the creep? Hopefully, the local PD will release details on what led to a 29 yo brutally attacking, and killing, an 85 yo.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Yessir. The fascist love them some criminal and sexual glitches in their recruits backgrounds.

  7. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    I’ll wager that armed citizens stop more felonies in progress than law enforcement. I know in 25 years, 12 hours a day, I can count on my fingers the number of felonies in progress I interupted. And I was looking for them. Criminals may not be smart, but most are not crazy. They look for cops before plying their trade.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Criminals tend to avoid police when committing crimes. At least back in the day. Today they’re becoming more proactive, persuading their intended victims to eliminate the police instead.

      1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

        Larry, sad but true.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Gadsden Flag,

      Incredibly serious question: how much danger is the armed citizen facing for holding the attacker at gunpoint until police roll up? While the armed citizen knows that he/she is a righteous person with honorable intentions, the police who are rolling up on the scene have no idea if the person standing there pointing a firearm at someone else is an attacker or a righteous, honorable defender. Seems to me that police could easily end up shooting the armed defender — which would be largely understandable in my opinion.

  8. avatar jakee308 says:

    Seems that 85 yo didn’t learn enough during his time to be able to determine that it was time for him to be prepared to defend himself.

    Sad that it happened but also sad that so many others don’t think it could happen to them or that somehow they wouldn’t need a firearm or means of defense.

    Even if it ‘s just a small .380 (which I have resorted to due to arthritis and carrying concealed restrictions due to my size and shape) that could be enough to at least fend off an attack. What’s important is to be prepared. Not to decide that attack is eminent. It may or may not be. Why take a chance that it won’t be?

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      I didn’t see anything in the article that said the man was unarmed or was attacked in such a manner that defense was possible. Some attacks are very very difficult to stop, especially if you are 85. Do you assume that Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield were negligent about self defense simply because they were shot and killed? They were armed and fairly well trained and practiced and they couldn’t save themselves.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        In fact, weren’t they even suspicious of the dude while driving to the range and exchanged texts with each other to be on guard?

      2. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        fairly well trained

        And that’s an understatement.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “What’s important is to be prepared.”

      Even staying 6ft away from other persons does not eliminate an attack from behind. No matter how well armed, someone walking by can just suddenly render you disabled, or dead. Do the math, find the math, understand that the likelihood that any individual will need to defend their lives at any particular moment is extremely small.

      No, this is not an endorsement of disarming the public. It is a statement that being armed is not Kryptonite to armed attacks. Being armed is no guarantee you will prevail in a confrontation.

      I cannot find a source reporting the number of innocent people killed in armed attacks in a given year. But if we take the population (~327million) and use the top end estimate of DGUs (~2.5million) we end up with a pseudo stat of 0.008 of the population experiencing a life-threatening situation. So, let’s speculate that since the DGU number represents attacks only on gun possessors, some other factor must be introduced to properly reflect the number of people in a given year who are faced with a deadly attack. Now, let’s agree on that factor…what should it be? Whatever number you pick, the overwhelming, vast majority of people in the country do not face deadly attacks. Is it really unreasonable for people to conclude they have no rational basis to go about armed, 24/7?

      Bottom line? Be prepared, understand preparedness is not a talisman. Recognize that people can rationally, and successfully, live their lives without being armed, at all. And even the armed person can be killed in a blindside attack.

  9. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Regarding the “gunslinger fantasy article.

    This is now the leading note on the article.

    “EDITOR’S NOTE: The original story identified a source as a combat veteran and former Navy SEAL. A records search has since revealed that he significantly exaggerated his military record. His comments have been removed from the article, and the headline has been changed. We apologize to our readers.”

  10. avatar 9x39 says:

    Glad to see a reappearance of the DGUotD articles, keep them coming.

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      For your viewing and reading pleasure:
      Des Moines police identify 16-year-old killed in shooting police say was justified
      https://www.kcci.com/article/it-makes-me-feel-happy-8-year-old-golfer-takes-community-by-storm/34072803

      1. avatar Darkman says:

        Wrong page above. This is correct article:
        Des Moines police identify 16-year-old killed in shooting police say was justified
        https://www.kcci.com/article/des-moines-police-identify-16-year-old-killed-in-justified-self-defense/34016781

  11. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Well. According to “experts” you are suppose to not intervene. And be a good witness, to a murder. This way the police can take their time getting to the crime scene.

    The biblical idea of coming to the aid of your fellow man, is just out dated. Secular thinking.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Not a religious person, don’t really give a hoot about some bible passage and yeah, I was educated in all that from a young age. Yet I and others have come to the aid of people in danger for their lives many times. In some vocations, paid and volunteer, it is very common stuff. Some of those people are very religious, some are not.

      There is a natural morality among civilized people. Ethics are a natural thing. Just as Evil and Criminality are naturally ocurring defects in the human character.

      What I always taught trainees was that if you have the ability to help, then you have the obligation to try. Not an obligation to succeed. Not an obligation to die in the effort. Only to try within your ability to aid and control the risk you face.

      In all things, there must be a limit.

      The armed woman did a good thing. I feel for her in dealing with the trauma she witnessed. Seeing another person die traumatically in front of you is a hard memory to carry around the rest of your days.

      1. avatar Morality Police says:

        Yes, the Big Bang accidentally gave us morals.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          No, it didn’t give us anything. We came along much later and evolved morality and ethics as we did so.

        2. avatar Morality Police says:

          So you would have come along and evolved without the Big Bang? Interesting.

        3. avatar Coolbreeze says:

          Sarc

      2. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

        If you think nature has built in morality, I suspect you would not have the opportunity to reproduce. Nature only cares about the strong over the weak. Your world must really suck

      3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Disagree, enuf. Ethics and morality are not generally innate.

        If you’re coming from a biblical perspective, the “heart of man is depraved” and all have sinned and fallen short (Romans 3:23, which is a summation of the need for Jesus’ atonement on our behalf).

        But for those who disregard that view and choose secular reasoning, I invite you to watch over a class of toddlers or preschoolers. You’ll quickly find which kiddos are willing to share toys or show empathy if seeing others cry, and which ones simply take what they want out of others’ hands and ignore the expressed anguish of others. Over all the years I helped in such classes, the ratio was always heavy toward the “takers”. This is why discipline and guidance are so important at a young age.

      4. avatar Grumpy Old Guy says:

        I only observe natural morals within a “tribal group”, where there is in theory some self preservation value in defending friends and family. Other than that, mankind is overall a greedy bunch of selfish bastards playing a sick zero sum game called natural selection (AKA evolution). Some overcome that tendency to a reasonable degree via faith. Others like our mostly peaceful protesters are giving into their sin nature.

    2. avatar Darkman says:

      @Morality Police: the theory of the “Big Bang’ is just that a Theory nothing more. Even among astrophysicist there continues to be debate as to the origin of the universe. That’s the Thing about Science what was held true years ago can suddenly be corrected through Scientific study and discovery. Science and it’s conclusions are seldom absolute.

      1. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

        Science can only describe how things appear to be. It can never provide the why. Is the big bang that much different than let there be light? Science can’t answer the really big questions. Primitive people understood this. All of religion is based on faith. If the atheists want proof, they are barking up the wrong tree

        1. avatar Coolbreeze says:

          Kind of like,,, “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” It is not to be found there. This is what they miss.

      2. avatar possum says:

        Once I get my Perpetual Neutrino Fission Bombnm built you all can forget about the Universe.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Let me know when you’re ready to pull the plug. I’ll raise a glass to toast you as the overwhelming flash lights up the sky.

      3. avatar Morality Police says:

        @Darkman: Science tells us if it ain’t on Wikipedia, then it didn’t happen. When it comes to the discussion of human evolution, they never use words like “argument” or “probably”. That’s what we call Settled Science™.

  12. avatar enuf says:

    Terrible news about the elderly man who was murdered.

    Well done by the woman who held the killer at gunpoint.

    But you know, it is true that “no one needs to carry a firearm” to go to the grocery store. What they need is the firearm, the ammunition inside the firearm, a loaded chamber and a reload for the firearm.

    After all, an empty gun is just a scary looking blunt object.

  13. avatar Tim says:

    “It isn’t clear what caused the attack….”
    Really?

    1. avatar Coolbreeze says:

      I’ll never understand this search for an explanation for an irrational act. Are they holding out the possibility that somehow it all makes perfect,justifiable sense. Why not just ask the murderer then. I’m sure he will give a plausible excuse. Morons.

  14. avatar possum says:

    A good guy with a gunm don’t fly, now a good gal with a gunm, different story

  15. avatar Hannibal says:

    Personally, if I see someone stab an 85 year old and they’re standing over the bleeding body I would consider it an imminent threat and not be issuing commands but everyone has to make their own choice in that instance.

    1. avatar LOL Hannibal says:

      No doubt. You’d turn and run away like the coward you are..

  16. avatar Richard Charles says:

    It would have been nice if he had actually included the story about what happened instead of just railing against people who say that there are cases of waffle citizens stepping in and stopping violence.

    As for having additional requirements for carrying a handgun especially concealed I think that makes a lot of sense. There is a vast difference between owning a gun that you keep locked away at home and carrying a gun that you might be required to draw in a public setting. For the ladder I think there needs to be significant training requirements and an understanding of when to draw how to draw safely the legalities of drawing a gun and if necessary how to use it with minimal impact on innocent people. May seem like common sense to some but it is a high adrenaline event and your brain tends to switch off unless it is been properly trained. Ask any military or police officer. So requiring extra evaluation and training makes a lot of sense

    1. avatar jwm says:

      We need to have testing and poll taxes on the right to vote. All rights need to be regulated and permitted by the .gov.

      Do I need a sarcasm tag?

  17. avatar Meijer is a knife free zone silly, that can’t happen ask halfwitmer! says:

    Bang bang bang bang bang, reload bang bang bang!

  18. avatar J Mack says:

    I live in Adrian Michigan, and the man who did the stabbing was released from the mental ward just days earlier.

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