CNN posts a positive story on guns

what a surprise. Now if only Fox can have even a sliver of ethical journalism, it’ll be a small step forward

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/13/us/washington-7-eleven-customer-shoots-attacker/index.html

A customer drinking coffee at a Seattle 7-Eleven Sunday morning drew a pistol and shot dead a hatchet-wielding man who went after him and the store clerk, authorities said.

“The suspect did not make any statements but swung the hatchet at the customer and then went behind the counter and attacked the clerk,” the sheriff’s office said.

Then, the customer fired back, according to the sheriff’s office. Paramedics tried to resuscitate the suspect, authorities said, but he died at the scene.

The customer, a 60-year-old man, had a concealed pistol license, according to the sheriff’s office. He was not injured.

The store’s 58-year-old clerk had a minor injury to his stomach from the hatchet attack, the sheriff’s office said

side note, have to give some credit to Sanders in one of the last debates. Clinton wanted to hold gun manufacturers legally responsible for crimes that people commit, and Sanders admitted “no that’s not right.” and “effectively is ending gun manufacturing in America”

^ Not sure how much “credit” Bernie is really due. He’s a long-time politician from a mostly rurual state and people in rural areas like guns. Bernie’s early positions on gun control would brand him a “gun nut” with most democrats. Although I think Bernie is largely a genuine guy, I think his gun control positions would be different if he spent his political career in a less pro-gun state.

It doesn’t seem like they spun this story as positive or negative. That conclusion, if any, just reflects the reader’s personal belief.

cool story brah

I meant the fact that CNN posted a citizen gun related shooting story with a positive ending

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/us/mississippi-escaped-murder-suspect-killed/

Well, the “positive ending” is that someone died. So, I think it could be debated either way. It’s only unequivocally positive if people universally believe that assault/robbery should carry a death sentence.

So, yes?

Yeah, they should have let that guy hatchet them to death so we could further debate mental health issues in America.

Yes.

One dead deranged psychopath: sounds like a big win for society to me. No expensive jail, no lawyers, no free food or healthcare during his lockup. 3x win

^thats a lot of winning

Well I suppose in theory a non-fatal gunshot wound leading to the psycho getting medical treatment and appropriate psychiatric help is probably a better outcome. But if a crazy guy was coming at me with a hatchet and I had a means to defend myself, I doubt I would be composed enough to be thinking anything other than bring the motherf*cker down as quickly as possible.

^ +1

Interesting coincidence that Sig Sauer is a large employer and manufactures their products in New Hampshire which Sanders won the primary in.

Wait, you know people that don’t think we should be able to use lethal force to stop someone from killing/hurting us? We should only act to subdue when that could decrease the chance of success?

Both the customer (60) with the firearm and the clerk (58) who were attacked were old enough that physically fighting was likely not an option and any injuries could have had life altering consequences even if not lethal.

In that light, it’s unfortunate the assailant weilding a hatchet (which he used) died but it is unequivocally positive in that this was among the best likely outcomes provided that we live in a real world and actions carry consequences.

^ For once BS and I will agree. Though I’ll say in most cases this isn’t how it would turn out.

wow crazy story