The three Americans who subdued a gunman aboard a train to Paris are friends from their middle-school days, and two of them serve in the armed forces.
This month, they embarked on a tour of Europe with stops in Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, France and Spain. But their trip was interrupted on Friday when a gunman boarded the high-speed train headed from Amsterdam to Paris, prepared to wreak havoc.
Mr. Stone was the first to jump up and charge the gunman, followed closely by Mr. Skarlatos and Mr. Sadler, according to Ms. Sadler.
The three tackled the gunman and, with the help of a British businessman living in France, tied him up, she said.
I observe that there were no "good men with guns" required to stop this "bad man with a gun".
I find that rather refreshing. I commend the valiant unarmed heroes.
I observe that there were no "good men with guns" required to stop this "bad man with a gun".
I find that rather refreshing. I commend the valiant unarmed heroes.
Certainly , this was in France where the gun laws are just as you might like them.
There are not any good men with guns , bad ones only.
According to Wayne LaPierre there are good men with guns.
If there are only bad men with guns, then guns are what separate bad men with guns and unarmed bad men.
Unarmed bad men are less dangerous.
If France did not restrict guns, this would surely happen much more often.
This country is not the world.
There are many fewer guns owned by Europeans, Japanese, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders and Japanese, and the number of gun deaths is MANY FEWER.
The point is not that one person was able to arm himself.
That is absurd logic. Read it again. It makes no sense.
The facts speak for themselves.
That is absurd logic. Read it again. It makes no sense.
The facts speak for themselves. We are many times more likely to get shot in this country than the French, and it is because there are more guns.
The tools of crime are not the cause of crime .