Arashikage Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Yes, you heard me right, this man, a resident of Utah saved three children and a man from drowning in a cold icy river, with a handgun and a knife. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45853756/ns/us_news-life/#.TwKzxPF5mK0 It's not every day you see pro gun news on TV or the internet, this is a good thing, this is what I like seeing personally. What do you guys think of this news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkyway64 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I think the point of the story doesn't revolve around the gun and rather a resourceful hero of a man. Lives were saved and families were spared devastation, to hell with what it does on the public view of firearms. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arashikage Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 I'm just saying how I'm glad that they're finally showing the good that firearms can be. I never said I didn't like the man's resourcefulness, and when I said this was what I like seeing, I was talking about how helpful he was, and what the man did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vy'drach Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 So the father freed himself, and left the children in the car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 It's not every day you see pro gun news on TV or the internet, this is a good thing, this is what I like seeing personally. What do you guys think of this news? No, this is not pro-firearm, this is pro-police training. That's when Willden's police officer training — along with his handgun and knife — became crucial. You're really stretching it if you think this is a YAY GUNS FOR EVERYONE article in the slightest. It's a great story to be sure, but using it to some political agenda is weak. edit: there were also a few non-armed bystanders who helped save the victims, by the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arashikage Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 No, this is not pro-firearm, this is pro-police training. You're really stretching it if you think this is a YAY GUNS FOR EVERYONE article in the slightest. It's a great story to be sure, but using it to some political agenda is weak. edit: there were also a few non-armed bystanders who helped save the victims, by the way You obviously misunderstand, or I just misspoke. If he had not had his gun with him, they would have never freed the children. I'm not using it to post any agenda, I'm stating my opinion on the article, I didn't figure I had to say that I was happy they freed the children as that should really go without saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xortberg Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 You obviously misunderstand, or I just misspoke. If he had not had his gun with him, they would have never freed the children. Not necessarily. You're making a statement as if it was a fact, like only the gun could have done the job. The guy was a cop, and he was trying to save some kids. If he hadn't had the gun, he would've found something else. Anyway, saying this article is good for guns is kind of like if say, there was some doctor who had to perform makeshift surgery during a drugwar and he used heroin as a painkiller or something to save a guy's life (for the record, I dunno if heroin is a painkiller or not. Let's just pretend it is). Yeah, it's cool that the drug does have some positive uses, but it's not gonna change the minds of anyone who's against it in the first place. I don't care either way about guns, but if I was against them, I'd not have my opinion changed because of this article in the slightest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vy'drach Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I think what he was getting at more is that the article shows guns more for what they are, inanimate tools, and not some nefarious hunk of metal that needs to be vilified like most other articles do. So the father freed himself, and left the children in the car? Still wondering about that, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arashikage Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 I think what he was getting at more is that the article shows guns more for what they are, inanimate tools, and not some nefarious hunk of metal that needs to be vilified like most other articles do. Thanks, that's what I was trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xortberg Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Well, yes, it does at that. But again, I point to my (possibly inaccurate) heroin example. It is, in essence, just a tool that can be used in a multitude of ways, but one example of one good person using it for a good cause won't do anything to change public opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arashikage Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 I don't want to change public opinion, I just feel that it's a good thing that we're hearing about this gun owner's smart use of his firearm. And yes, your heroin example was sort of accurate. Heroin isn't inherently bad, it's actually used by professionals to treat pain, in fact, most drugs have a practical use and are used in a practical way by doctors or other licensed professionals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
"User" Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Morphine would probably be a better drug to use in that analogy. Heroin isn't used nearly as often - and for good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xortberg Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Morphine would probably be a better drug to use in that analogy. Heroin isn't used nearly as often - and for good reason. Only morphine is generally accepted as a hospital drug, and not an illicit substance like heroin is. The illegality of the drug is where the anti-opinion of it comes from, which makes for a better comparison to people who are anti-gun and believe they should be illegal for whatever reason. They have a negative opinion of it, whereas most peoples' opinion of morphine is neutral at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
"User" Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Only morphine is generally accepted as a hospital drug, and not an illicit substance like heroin is. The illegality of the drug is where the anti-opinion of it comes from, which makes for a better comparison to people who are anti-gun and believe they should be illegal for whatever reason. They have a negative opinion of it, whereas most peoples' opinion of morphine is neutral at worst. You're right, should have read a little more into that. Damn multitasking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arashikage Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 Actually, Heroin is used in hospitals, it's not seen much, and for good reason, but it's still used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vy'drach Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Well morphine, and thus codeine as well, are offshoots of heroin, just aimed at less recreational use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 You obviously misunderstand, or I just misspoke. If he had not had his gun with him, they would have never freed the children. I'm not using it to post any agenda, I'm stating my opinion on the article, I didn't figure I had to say that I was happy they freed the children as that should really go without saying. I never said you weren't happy that the kids were freed; but you did say, quite clearly, that you were happy to see some "pro-gun news". I said that your heralding it as "pro-gun news" is invalidated by the fact that the hero was a cop (at one point) to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vy'drach Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I never said you weren't happy that the kids were freed; but you did say, quite clearly, that you were happy to see some "pro-gun news". I said that your heralding it as "pro-gun news" is invalidated by the fact that the hero was a cop (at one point) to begin with. I actually don't see how that invalidates in any way the fact that a gun is a tool that isn't a nefarious, evil mastermind of metal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Nor is it an an angelic saint of good will. It's a tool--originally intended to be one that kills people, mind you, but a tool nontheless--so by your reasoning looking for "pro-gun" news is just as inane as looking for "anti-gun" news. And you are invalidating it by claiming it to be "pro-gun" where the man weilding the gun is an ex police officer, and police officers are typically associated with "good" to begin with. Also by that logic, every single article that includes "police do something" is "pro-gun news". So in that case, that brand of news isn't as uncommon as you seem to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Monroe Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I LOVE HOW A TOPIC ABOUT HOW A GUY BEING RESOURCEFUL WITH AN OFT DISDAINED DEVICE TURNS INTO A SHITSTORM OVER BEING PRO OR ANTI GUN. THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS. OR GUNS FOR THAT MATTER. SHINE ON YOU CRAZY DIAMONDS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I dunno, when the topic's OP ends with "what do you guys think about this rare piece of pro-gun news" you think that's kind of the implied topic of discussion also wow if you think anything here is a shitstorm in the least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 i like how you guys took a story that's actually about someone resourcefully managing to save some lives, with the gun being only an incidental factor in the event, and tried to spin it into some NRA second amendment bullshit political lever instead of, say, the story of that 18-year-old Oklahoma mother who blew away a home intruder with a 12-gauge, doing a thing only a gun can do, as opposed to doing a thing that rocks and sticks and elbows can also do but in this instance were not chosen to do. however, the reactions thereof being "YAAAAY GUNS" instead of, oh, i dunno, say, "YAAAAY PEOPLE NOT NEEDLESSLY DYING" is a close second! nice job guys. top score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Calling the news "pro" or "anti" gun in general is kind of goofy, thinking on it now. I mean, regardless of your personal beliefs on what is being reported, the incident still occurred. So yes, an ex-cop saved some people and happened to use his gun while doing it. And a child managed to kill his friend (brother?) with a gun that was laying around unguarded in their house. These things still happened and are being reported because they're happy or horrible and generally interesting, not because the universe itself is trying to tailor specific events to suit your political needs. This story is not "pro-gun". It's "ex-cop and other bystanders come together to save a family who was otherwise doomed". Your reactions to these incidents are when a side is taken, but looking at the story as it is, no such slant exists. You're looking for an agenda in a story that's really just a case of the right people at just the right time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 besides which, "this just goes to show you that guns are great because you never know when you'll have to shoot out the windows of a car to rescue children from a freezing river" is the same sort of stupid thinking that makes us have to take our shoes off at the airport so the TSA can check if there is terrorism inside of them. so i'm not sure why you would harp about this story being some triumph of pro-firearm policy or whatever anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vy'drach Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I actually didn't discuss anything about firearms or NRA. Just helped Arashikage say something in a way that was supposed to keep people from jumping down his throat more. My first statement was actually about the father who freed himself and then apparently abandoned the children to their fate. I dunno, when the topic's OP ends with "what do you guys think about this rare piece of pro-gun news" you think that's kind of the implied topic of discussion The actual sentence was, "It's not every day you see pro gun news on TV or the internet, this is a good thing, this is what I like seeing personally. What do you guys think of this news?" The "What do you guys think of this news?" part could easily be referring to the story in general, with just a side statement about how it's refreshing to see a story in the news about a gun where it isn't vilified. Nor is it an an angelic saint of good will. It's a tool--originally intended to be one that kills people, mind you, but a tool nontheless Never said it was a saint of good will. I was the one saying they are tools and nothing more, beautiful though they may be (usually). Also, your statement of intending to kill people is a bit false. They are intended to fire cartridges, which is where their lethality lies. The Franchi SPAS-12 was designed with a wide range of non-lethals in mind, from bean bags to tear gas. What a gun is designed to do is both subjective and on a case by case basis. Such as the Barrett M82A1 long range .50 BMG anti-material rifle. It was not designed for shooting personnel, and for a long perioud of time, it was a war crime to do so. It was designed to incapacitate light skinned vehicles and other important enemy equipment from a long distance, rendering them useless, which is why it's in the class "anti-material rifles." "we should all have guns because you never know when you'll have to shoot out the windows of a car to rescue children from a freezing river" At what point was that ever said or implied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts