On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 13:45:40 -0700, Winston_Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:09:21 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:29:14 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 11:44:56 -0600, RD Sandman wrote:

The civilian passer-by is the one who shot the attacker of the officer.

Yes. That's what I said. Just that the media doesn't like to say
citizens with guns is a good thing.

If the first citizen didn't have a gun perhaps the second would not
have been required to have one?????

The "first citizen" was a criminal. There are lots of ways to attack
and harm a cop. The gun is one way. But FIRST it requires a criminal.
The criminal will find something. Do you assume if everyone were
disarmed, the criminal would not find a way to get a gun?

The cop would not have been shot
and would most likely NOT have required assistance of the lethal
variety from a bystander.

Your attacking criminal would have gotten lethal attention from the
cop. (And the left would be down one voter.)

You "alt right" guys

Whatever that is, I doubt it's me. I doubt it's either of the
responsible citizens in this event either. Just a "hate" term the left
likes to use. (NOTE: The left is all love and despises hate. /sarcasm)

need to understand the concept of cause and effect.

Cause: A criminal refused to stop trying to kill a cop.
Effect: He was shot and killed.


Nothing about "refusing to stop" or any indication there was a
"criminal" involved untill after the cop stopped to investigate an
"accident" and was attacked by a man with a gun - Chances are pretty
good the cop would have stood a good chance on his own if he had not
been shot -

I'm NOT saying anything about gun laws etc - but will repeat what has
been said many times before - when it is illegal for the public to
carry guns, then only criminals will carry guns - and that can be
taken (at least) 2 ways.

Don't get too far astray from the facts. From B1ack's post it appears
there are three citizens. The perp who was attacking the cop. A second
who shot the perp because he wouldn't call off his attack. A third who
used the police radio to summon assistance.

One criminal, two responsible citizens, at least one armed. One live
cop; one dead criminal. Not too bad a ratio as the world goes today.

Somehow you think it's the guns fault because a citizen did what the
cop would have done if he could. That's why we arm cops.
I never said it was "the gun's fault" - in fact I never assigned
blame. I just stated the undisputable fact that if the first (crook)
had not had a gun, the second (armed citizen) would not have required
a gun.