ADVERTISEMENT

A Thug Pulled a Knife on Students in the UNO Library Today...

Status
Not open for further replies.
After he was subdued by three guys, two more knives were found on him.
n52018c86e661b.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: BradWesley
This is why I believe strongly in the ability to conceal and carry a gun for all law abiding citizens everywhere as long as they are at the age of 18 and over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sparky62
Looks like they might of broke the thugs glasses.
Dumb thug probably thought they wouldn't hit a thug wearing glasses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timnsun
This is why I believe strongly in the ability to conceal and carry a gun for all law abiding citizens everywhere as long as they are at the age of 18 and over.
I agree. Took the C&C class 2 years ago. Love my S&W 40 cal. Never thought I would ever carry, but things have changed in the last 25 years.
 
This is why I believe strongly in the ability to conceal and carry a gun for all law abiding citizens everywhere as long as they are at the age of 18 and over.

Do you think allowing people to carry concealed guns would have stopped this guy from carrying knives? I don't see any reason for needing a gun in this situation. The guy with the knives was subdued and nobody was hurt as far as I know. Throw in people carrying guns and someone could have easily lost their life. I don't see any positive a gun would have brought to this situation.
 
Yes a gun sure would have helped make this situation an incident where 3 people were mildly annoyed that their study time was interrupted into a situation where some overzealous guy anxious to live out his self-defense fantasy could have finally shot someone. That's definitely the preferable route this situation should have taken.
 
Yes a gun sure would have helped make this situation an incident where 3 people were mildly annoyed that their study time was interrupted into a situation where some overzealous guy anxious to live out his self-defense fantasy could have finally shot someone. That's definitely the preferable route this situation should have taken.

True, but what if the hooligan actually knew what he was doing or had real intent to hurt someone? It's probably not that common that a guy with a knife is forcefully subdued without someone getting cut (unless it's Chuck Norris). A gun would have given him plenty of reason to put the knife down and be controlled. You don't have to kill him, just pop him in the leg and incapacitate him.

I'm thinking this kid wanted to make a point, not actually kill someone, or that picture would be NSFW. In this case, no gun was necessary.
 
Do you think allowing people to carry concealed guns would have stopped this guy from carrying knives? I don't see any reason for needing a gun in this situation. The guy with the knives was subdued and nobody was hurt as far as I know. Throw in people carrying guns and someone could have easily lost their life. I don't see any positive a gun would have brought to this situation.

Agreed. Even without getting into gun laws or rights, a gun makes this situation go from "freaky situation handled with no injuries, everyone resumes studying for finals" to "gunshots on campus, campus lockdown, panic." Absolutely no reason to think of this as a situation in which a gun would have helped.
 
If you don't see a reason a gun would be helpful in a situation where someone is threatening with a knife, I don't really know what to say. In this situation, thankfully nobody was hurt seriously. But that being said, a person with any sharp object, be it a knife or whatever, is a serious threat if you are unarmed.

If you don't agree, try being a correctional officer and try to subdue an inmate with an improvised knife and tell me you wouldn't want SOMETHING so you aren't unarmed. Thankfully I've never had to encounter that situation, but we train for it. Even with training I'm still not comfortable disarming someone.

In reality, chances are someone pulls a concealed pistol, suspect here either runs or drops to the ground, possibly pissing his pants in either case. If he attacks the person with the firearm, that shows he truly has homicidal intent and I see no reason someone wouldn't be justified in opening fire.

Despite what people think, most concealed carriers are not wanna be cowboys with a fantasy to shoot someone. Most are law abiding citizens who prefer to be proactive in defending themselves and their loved ones. 99.9% of people have no desire to shoot anyone, and in this situation most people probably wouldn't have shot, but probably would have at least brandished.

I don't have my CCL yet, in Illinois it isn't cheap to get one. I do plan on getting it soon though.
 
Would you like to see how a sample of college students, some with a lot of target shooting experience, perform when faced with an active shooter? (spoiler alert: badly)





But-Thats-None-Of-My-Business.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: huskerj12
Fair enough BigBL87! Your reasoning is thought out, and I do appreciate that you do seem to take the responsibility seriously, unlike some people (not in this thread) who DO make themselves out to be cowboys in a fantasy land.
 
Interesting video. A couple things about it though.

1. Their "opponent" is a firearms instructor and much higher skill level wise. Not typical of most real life active shooter situations. Also, after shooting the instructor the "bad guy" goes directly to shooting at the subject. Notice how the subject is in the exact same seat every time?

2. No matter whether you're a seasoned police officer or a new carrier, you're going to be at a disadvantage in a situation like that. I'd venture to guess alot of police officers would have fared similarly.

3. It doesn't look like they had a choice in what they were wearing. When you carry concealed, you preferably dress around what you are carrying, making it more accessible while also being concealed. If anything, I think it shows why open carry should be allowed.

4. Most of all, though, by the line of reasoning you seem to be espousing, since helmets don't help prevent some concussions, might as well not wear them at all.

5. If you watch the second part of the video, they had one very experienced CCWer who did well... except they planted a second shooter in the class to get him. Really? The more you watch the video, it is clearly coming from a biased perspective. The information is useful, but they clearly did the "research" with the conclusion as the goal. I also liked how they made it seem the kid with experience shooting airsoft guns was "experienced". Really?

I don't wish to carry because I want to use it or even because I think it is a guarantee I will survive. Just because I have a gun does not mean I have to use it. Carrying is about evening the odds with those who wish to do me or my loved ones harm. The video really highlights that handguns aren't easy to shoot and require practice, and I would tell you that to begin with. It also highlights things that concealed carriers should be aware of. But it also set the "subjects" up to fail, as like I stated above it was a study designed to draw a specific conclusion rather than to discover the truth.
 
Last edited:
I still don't see a gun being any benefit in this situation. Here's another video, though older.



If a person has homicidal intent, having a concealed firearm doesn't guarantee you won't get hurt or killed. It could make you more of a target as you reach for your gun. The attacker may see your movements and go after you first. This is all hypothetical. In this situation, I don't see how a gun would have helped anything.

I'm also not against guns. I've been through gun training and certification.
 
Do you think allowing people to carry concealed guns would have stopped this guy from carrying knives? I don't see any reason for needing a gun in this situation. The guy with the knives was subdued and nobody was hurt as far as I know. Throw in people carrying guns and someone could have easily lost their life. I don't see any positive a gun would have brought to this situation.
It doesn't have anything to do with stopping people from carrying [fill in the blank]. It has to do with being able to defend against people carrying [fill in the blank]. Breaking news . . . KNIVES KILL PEOPLE TOO! A gun would have been positive if this guy was knew how to use his knives and started slashing people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sparky62
If you don't see a reason a gun would be helpful in a situation where someone is threatening with a knife, I don't really know what to say. In this situation, thankfully nobody was hurt seriously. But that being said, a person with any sharp object, be it a knife or whatever, is a serious threat if you are unarmed.

If you don't agree, try being a correctional officer and try to subdue an inmate with an improvised knife and tell me you wouldn't want SOMETHING so you aren't unarmed. Thankfully I've never had to encounter that situation, but we train for it. Even with training I'm still not comfortable disarming someone.

In reality, chances are someone pulls a concealed pistol, suspect here either runs or drops to the ground, possibly pissing his pants in either case. If he attacks the person with the firearm, that shows he truly has homicidal intent and I see no reason someone wouldn't be justified in opening fire.

Despite what people think, most concealed carriers are not wanna be cowboys with a fantasy to shoot someone. Most are law abiding citizens who prefer to be proactive in defending themselves and their loved ones. 99.9% of people have no desire to shoot anyone, and in this situation most people probably wouldn't have shot, but probably would have at least brandished.

I don't have my CCL yet, in Illinois it isn't cheap to get one. I do plan on getting it soon though.

The problem as I see it is that those who support the presence of guns in a situation like this see all of these scenarios as black and white and have a real failure of imagination. Let's say, for the sake of argument, there were four or five well intentioned gun owners who arrive on the scene. We now know that there was only one "bad guy" with a knife. At the time, however, perhaps the second or third person to arrive at the scene sees only the first guy with a gun pointing it at a guy with a knife and shoots the first gun owner out of an incorrect but fair assumption that HE was the "bad guy." Is that really difficult to imagine? In the minds of CCW owners, it's always one good guy--who is always cool under pressure despite ample evidence to the contrary--who shows-up and knows exactly who to take-out. If all of you were armed as you advocate, however, and you have a bunch of different guys who arrive at the scene at different points in time, all pointing guns at one another, haven't we just exacerbated a dangerous but manageable situation into something much more than that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: huskerj12
So you guys think that a guy with a knife would choose to attack an area he knew there would be multiple people armed and able to defend themselves?

The scenarios you anti-gun loons post are so stupid and unrealistic. Obviously an attacker could possibly get 1 or 2 people, but you're not going to have a Virginia tech or Von Maur or Batman Movie level incident if more people exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

I understand that you're incapable of protecting yourselves and unwilling to do so. That's fine. I respect that you've made that decision FOR YOURSELF. But why the hell do you think you get to decide what other law abiding people should do?
 
The problem as I see it is that those who support the presence of guns in a situation like this see all of these scenarios as black and white and have a real failure of imagination. Let's say, for the sake of argument, there were four or five well intentioned gun owners who arrive on the scene. We now know that there was only one "bad guy" with a knife. At the time, however, perhaps the second or third person to arrive at the scene sees only the first guy with a gun pointing it at a guy with a knife and shoots the first gun owner out of an incorrect but fair assumption that HE was the "bad guy." Is that really difficult to imagine? In the minds of CCW owners, it's always one good guy--who is always cool under pressure despite ample evidence to the contrary--who shows-up and knows exactly who to take-out. If all of you were armed as you advocate, however, and you have a bunch of different guys who arrive at the scene at different points in time, all pointing guns at one another, haven't we just exacerbated a dangerous but manageable situation into something much more than that?
Are there more people than you that think this way? Of course the presence of guns could make a situation worse, it also could make a situation better. A failure of imagination? Really? You come up with this wonderfully imaginative story, but you can't understand how guns could very much improve a situation? If those who support conceal carry have a real failure of imagination, then it seems fair to say that those who oppose conceal carry have a real failure of common sense?
 
Are there more people than you that think this way? Of course the presence of guns could make a situation worse, it also could make a situation better. A failure of imagination? Really? You come up with this wonderfully imaginative story, but you can't understand how guns could very much improve a situation? If those who support conceal carry have a real failure of imagination, then it seems fair to say that those who oppose conceal carry have a real failure of common sense?

"Wonderfully imaginative story." Really??? It actually seems pretty logical. More people arriving on crime scenes with guns, thus creating more uncertainty as to who are the "bad guys" and who are the "good guys" is simply the logical consequence of what you are advocating for. It just is. Even if I (incredibly graciously) stipulate that you all are tremendous marksmen, even in a high-stress situation, there is nothing you can train for that will tell you with certainty which of the multiple people with guns are the ones you want to go after. The poster prior to you mentioned the Aurora shooting in the movie theatre and argued that, while he may have still killed a couple people, the damage would have minimized had there been more people armed. To me, that is an obvious fallacy. You have a dark theatre and see five or six people all holding-up guns. Honestly, how on earth are you supposed to gather--in an instant--the intentions of all the participants? This may be imaginative but it's also perfectly rational to consider.

Finally, by no means am I saying that I cannot imagine how guns could improve a situation. There are absolutely many scenarios in which they would. That being said, I try to govern my life around logic and evidence and both of those dictate that the presence of more guns is a net negative for public safety.
 
To be honest, I do find the story you came up with to be a bad example. If I came in to see someone with a gun drawn, and someone with a knife, I would immediately assume the person with the knife was the "bad guy." Why? Because most people wouldn't draw a knife on a bad guy with a gun. Ever heard the term bringing a knife to a gunfight?

That being said, I understand the point you are making, but I've never heard of anything like that happening despite the fact that concealed carry has been around a long time in some areas of the country. And you know the media would jump all over that.

And arguing that guns are a net negative for public safety, I have a hard time agreeing with. Ever notice where most mass shootings occur? In "gun free zones." Schools mostly, but also look at Fort Hood. Sounds wierd, but unless you are on duty and/or an MP, you aren't allowed to carry a sidearm on most bases here in the US. Shooters like soft targets.
 
"Wonderfully imaginative story." Really??? It actually seems pretty logical. More people arriving on crime scenes with guns, thus creating more uncertainty as to who are the "bad guys" and who are the "good guys" is simply the logical consequence of what you are advocating for. It just is. Even if I (incredibly graciously) stipulate that you all are tremendous marksmen, even in a high-stress situation, there is nothing you can train for that will tell you with certainty which of the multiple people with guns are the ones you want to go after. The poster prior to you mentioned the Aurora shooting in the movie theatre and argued that, while he may have still killed a couple people, the damage would have minimized had there been more people armed. To me, that is an obvious fallacy. You have a dark theatre and see five or six people all holding-up guns. Honestly, how on earth are you supposed to gather--in an instant--the intentions of all the participants? This may be imaginative but it's also perfectly rational to consider.

Finally, by no means am I saying that I cannot imagine how guns could improve a situation. There are absolutely many scenarios in which they would. That being said, I try to govern my life around logic and evidence and both of those dictate that the presence of more guns is a net negative for public safety.
No and No. What logic and evidence are you referring to? Yours? Well, you haven't given any evidence whatsoever. You have given your theories which, being an attorney, you would understand is not evidence. You have proposed that lots of confused people with lots of guns could cause a problem. I don't disagree with that, but I also don't think the scenario you have set out is one that would be common at all.

What happens is that the "bad guy" stabs someone or starts shooting. Those in the immediate vicinity are the most aware of the circumstances, who the "bad guy" is, and they deal with it. It doesn't involve dozens of armed people, fully unaware of the situation, rushing into a room and opening fire on the first person they see with a gun. It is situational awareness. There aren't 7 people standing up next to each other with guns and you have to pick out which one of them is the "bad guy." It is logical to believe that the circumstances of the situation will dictate quite clearly who is the "bad guy."
 
So you guys think that a guy with a knife would choose to attack an area he knew there would be multiple people armed and able to defend themselves?

The scenarios you anti-gun loons post are so stupid and unrealistic. Obviously an attacker could possibly get 1 or 2 people, but you're not going to have a Virginia tech or Von Maur or Batman Movie level incident if more people exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

I understand that you're incapable of protecting yourselves and unwilling to do so. That's fine. I respect that you've made that decision FOR YOURSELF. But why the hell do you think you get to decide what other law abiding people should do?


You are right, no law abiding citizen would ever kill an unarmed man if they carried a concealed weapon.

http://gawker.com/the-subway-slaying-that-wasnt-a-crime-1697565926

Again, I'm not anti-gun. I also don't believe everyone carrying weapons will make the world safer.
 
You are right, no law abiding citizen would ever kill an unarmed man if they carried a concealed weapon.

http://gawker.com/the-subway-slaying-that-wasnt-a-crime-1697565926

Again, I'm not anti-gun. I also don't believe everyone carrying weapons will make the world safer.

The potential of America will not be seen until all it's citizens are carrying automatic weopanry. Even better if we also would carry a hunting knife, a few hand granades, and wore an american flag bandana with John 3:16 written on the backs of our leather jackets.
 
The potential of America will not be seen until all it's citizens are carrying automatic weopanry. Even better if we also would carry a hunting knife, a few hand granades, and wore an american flag bandana with John 3:16 written on the backs of our leather jackets.

The dream is alive and well in Oklahoma
 
So you guys think that a guy with a knife would choose to attack an area he knew there would be multiple people armed and able to defend themselves?

The scenarios you anti-gun loons post are so stupid and unrealistic. Obviously an attacker could possibly get 1 or 2 people, but you're not going to have a Virginia tech or Von Maur or Batman Movie level incident if more people exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

I understand that you're incapable of protecting yourselves and unwilling to do so. That's fine. I respect that you've made that decision FOR YOURSELF. But why the hell do you think you get to decide what other law abiding people should do?

Are you suggesting that a person who decides to go on any kind of murderous rampage is going to make a rational decision to cancel that rampage based on whether or not he thinks people there are armed?

My issue with prescribing handguns as the solution to armed crime is this: Have you MET the average person? We have to put warning labels on hair dryers to tell people not to take a bath with them. You want to give these people guns?

Some people are crazy, and nothing will ever stop that. But waaaaaaay more people are stupid. I don't trust stupid people to properly handle firearms.

Here's just one. I could post these all day. You own a gun and just keep it loaded in your purse with the safety off. REALLY?!?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/30/woman-shot-with-own-gun/21062089/
 
  • Like
Reactions: forNU
You are right, no law abiding citizen would ever kill an unarmed man if they carried a concealed weapon.

http://gawker.com/the-subway-slaying-that-wasnt-a-crime-1697565926

Again, I'm not anti-gun. I also don't believe everyone carrying weapons will make the world safer.

Some crimes are prevented this way. I won't pretend they are not. This particular study very strongly suggests that having guns makes it much more likely that your family will suffer a gun death, particularly a suicide or accident.

People take the "it won't happen to my family" attitude about suicide or an accidental shooting. They think their kids know better than to play with the guns, or that suicide is something that can't happen to them. The math says that's wishful thinking.

The laws are what they are, it's people's right. I know I won't change anyone's mind. But if you want to play the percentages and base your decision that way, you're better off having a plan to escape to safety than getting into a gunfight.

http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home 2011.pdf
 
I approve of the right to carry, but in some respects, your best defensive weapon is the camera on your cell phone, in your car, in the bank lobby, store parking lot etc..

If I was ever in a situation, I'd remind the perp of all the cameras recording everything and hope they have a quick change of mind. When people realize they are being filmed, it does tend to be pretty powerful in changing their state of mind instantly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT