Man uses his concealed gun to save life of woman entering abortion clinic...likely there to kill her baby. Leftists cry.

Status
Not open for further replies.

2aguy

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2014
111,895
52,168
2,290
A woman was attempting to enter an abortion clinic was attacked by the man who brought her to the clinic....he started shooting at her. An Abortion protestor, armed with a concealed, legal, gun, fired on the attacker saving the woman's life.

But......But.....I thought people never used guns for actual self defense....right?

And two......saving the life of a woman who is there to end the life of her baby? Odd, isn't it.....

Here is the story...

The fact that an anti-abortion protestor saved a woman who was going into an abortion clinic should be very newsworthy. If the opposite had happened, if the protestor had harmed the woman, it would get national news. But this story of an anti-abortion protestor saving a woman’s life is only getting local news coverage. The event took place on Saturday, May 15th, 2021, at the Alamo Women’s Reproductive Services, 7402 John Smith Dr #101, San Antonio, TX 78229.

. No one was injured, San Antonio Police spokesperson crediting an armed bystander who returned fire.
No one was injured, San Antonio Police Department spokesperson Christopher Ramos said, crediting an armed bystander who returned fire.
The shooting happened Saturday around 8:30 a.m. in the 7400 block of John Smith Drive, near the intersection of Wurzbach and Babcock roads on the Northwest Side.
A man who arrived with a woman at the facility pulled out a gun and shot at the woman but missed, Ramos said during a morning press conference near the scene.
A person who was with a group of protesters near the clinic saw the shooter and used his handgun to fire at the man, police said. Police said the protester had a license to carry the pistol.


 
This story doesn't give out a whole lot of information, so I dug up another source.

According to a local news agency, this guy was hiding in the trunk of her car. When she stopped to get out at the clinic, he jumped out of the trunk and started shooting at her. The CCW holder then shot at the shooter. He ran and at least from what I read, was not found. The article also said it's not known if the shooter was hit or not.

 
There is not enough information. Apparently, the guy who shot at her was hiding in the trunk of her car, and she knows him. I hope that they catch this guy and more information becomes known as to his motives. This does not seem to be a situation in which the shooter in the trunk was attempting to force her to have an abortion against her will.
 
There is not enough information. Apparently, the guy who shot at her was hiding in the trunk of her car, and she knows him. I hope that they catch this guy and more information becomes known as to his motives. This does not seem to be a situation in which the shooter in the trunk was attempting to force her to have an abortion against her will.

It may be the opposite. This may have been the father of the expected child who wanted her to have the baby. We don't know.
 
There is not enough information. Apparently, the guy who shot at her was hiding in the trunk of her car, and she knows him. I hope that they catch this guy and more information becomes known as to his motives. This does not seem to be a situation in which the shooter in the trunk was attempting to force her to have an abortion against her will.

It may be the opposite. This may have been the father of the expected child who wanted her to have the baby. We don't know.

One question then...if he was the father and didn't want her to abort the baby, then shooting and killing her is an odd choice.

We do need more info.
 
One question then...if he was the father and didn't want her to abort the baby, then shooting and killing her is an odd choice.

We do need more info.

Yes, but you know how godless people are today. It's just one possibility I thought of.

The reason I came to that possibility is it's reported that she knew the shooter, meaning he could have shot her anytime. Why did he hide in the trunk of her car, drive to a place where a lot of people were, and shoot here there of all places? Seems like he was trying to make a statement of some sort.
 
There is not enough information. Apparently, the guy who shot at her was hiding in the trunk of her car, and she knows him. I hope that they catch this guy and more information becomes known as to his motives. This does not seem to be a situation in which the shooter in the trunk was attempting to force her to have an abortion against her will.

It may be the opposite. This may have been the father of the expected child who wanted her to have the baby. We don't know.

One question then...if he was the father and didn't want her to abort the baby, then shooting and killing her is an odd choice.

We do need more info.
Yup. We do. My initial reaction to the headline was that the anti-abortion protester was saving the woman from someone trying to force her to have an abortion. But this seems not to be the case. She could have gone to the clinic for other reasons, and we don't know if she was even pregnant. All we know is that she was going to the clinic voluntarily, given that she drove herself there. This could turn out to be two anti-abortion guys having a shoot out.
 
Everybody ended up alive is a bad thing? What's a good thing to you, this guy murdering this woman and perhaps never getting caught?

Actually, what would have been a good thing would have been neither of these jackasses having a gun to start with.

That would have been a good thing.

Now, if a couple of anti-Choice crazies perform a 126th Trimester abortion on each other, I'm down with that, too.
 
Actually, what would have been a good thing would have been neither of these jackasses having a gun to start with.

That would have been a good thing.

Now, if a couple of anti-Choice crazies perform a 126th Trimester abortion on each other, I'm down with that, too.

But this is the point we have been trying to make to you on the left. If firearms were difficult or nearly impossible to retain, the only guy in this scenario that would have had a gun was the murderer, because all the laws or government harassment in the world won't stop them from getting a firearm in the US. It would only have stopped the good guy with the gun that stopped a murder.
 
But this is the point we have been trying to make to you on the left. If firearms were difficult or nearly impossible to retain, the only guy in this scenario that would have had a gun was the murderer, because all the laws or government harassment in the world won't stop them from getting a firearm in the US. It would only have stopped the good guy with the gun that stopped a murder.

Actually, it would have stopped both of them, because most gun crimes are not committed by career criminals.

This sounds like a guy who was just upset his girlfriend was aborting his fetus. Not a career, lifelong criminal who had a gun from the black market, but a guy who made a bad decision...one me might not have made had ne not had easy access to a gun.
 
Actually, it would have stopped both of them, because most gun crimes are not committed by career criminals.

This sounds like a guy who was just upset his girlfriend was aborting his fetus. Not a career, lifelong criminal who had a gun from the black market, but a guy who made a bad decision...one me might not have made had ne not had easy access to a gun.

He doesn't have to be a career criminal to be a criminal, just like people who buy illegal drugs are in many cases not career criminals. Illegal guns will always be available to those who want them, but only the law abiding won't seek one. Somebody willing to go to the extremes of murder doesn't give a damn whether he has an illegal gun or not.
 
He doesn't have to be a career criminal to be a criminal, just like people who buy illegal drugs are in many cases not career criminals. Illegal guns will always be available to those who want them, but only the law abiding won't seek one. Somebody willing to go to the extremes of murder doesn't give a damn whether he has an illegal gun or not.

You miss the point entirely.

Okay. World without guns. The guy who is upset that his girlfriend is getting an abortion does not have a gun in the nightstand. He might be upset enough to be angry about it, but he isn't going to try to find a reliable illegal gun dealer and chuck out a few thousand bucks to get an illegal gun.

The point is, most murders happen because a gun is readily available in a stressful situation. So instead of using fists to resolve a problem, guns end up getting involved. Most homicides are people who know each other, not a criminal taking out a stranger.

The rest of the industrialized world has figured this out, which is why we have 19,000 homicides a year and they all have less than 1000.
 
You miss the point entirely.

Okay. World without guns. The guy who is upset that his girlfriend is getting an abortion does not have a gun in the nightstand. He might be upset enough to be angry about it, but he isn't going to try to find a reliable illegal gun dealer and chuck out a few thousand bucks to get an illegal gun.

The point is, most murders happen because a gun is readily available in a stressful situation. So instead of using fists to resolve a problem, guns end up getting involved. Most homicides are people who know each other, not a criminal taking out a stranger.

The rest of the industrialized world has figured this out, which is why we have 19,000 homicides a year and they all have less than 1000.

Most criminal acts with guns are committed with an illegal firearm. Very few will use their own registered gun to commit murder outside of murder/ suicide. That would be like leaving a bread crumb trail to your door. Every gun sold in the US by a licensed dealer has to submit a fired round from that weapon for the ballistics to be entered into a national data base. If I used my firearm to commit a crime, they would be knocking on my door within hours.

Guns are not that difficult to make either. They were showing how they can be made with a 3-D printer, and the article claims that they are doing that today. Years ago one of my friends had another one of our friends who worked at a machine shop make him parts for his guns that turned his weapons from a semi-automatic to fully automatic. It was just some stupid little part.

The conclusion is that all you would do by making guns difficult or impossible to get is create a larger black market than we already have, and that only empowers the criminal and weakens victims.
 
He doesn't have to be a career criminal to be a criminal, just like people who buy illegal drugs are in many cases not career criminals. Illegal guns will always be available to those who want them, but only the law abiding won't seek one. Somebody willing to go to the extremes of murder doesn't give a damn whether he has an illegal gun or not.

You miss the point entirely.

Okay. World without guns. The guy who is upset that his girlfriend is getting an abortion does not have a gun in the nightstand. He might be upset enough to be angry about it, but he isn't going to try to find a reliable illegal gun dealer and chuck out a few thousand bucks to get an illegal gun.

The point is, most murders happen because a gun is readily available in a stressful situation. So instead of using fists to resolve a problem, guns end up getting involved. Most homicides are people who know each other, not a criminal taking out a stranger.

The rest of the industrialized world has figured this out, which is why we have 19,000 homicides a year and they all have less than 1000.
Most murders happen because someone wants someone else dead. Most murders, by far, are committed by criminals with long records for whom it was already illegal for them to have a gun but, surprisingly, when planning to break the law to commit murder, they don't care about the law. Most murders are black-on-black gang-related murders. Did you know that black women are murdered at twice the rate that are white women?

Gun murders are absolutely a product of the availability of guns. Knife murders are a product of unavailability of guns while knives were available. Choking murders are a product of the unavailability of guns and knives but the availability of hands.

Most crime-of-passion murders against women are not committed with guns; women are beaten or strangled. To get the gun takes at least some bit of planning.
 
He doesn't have to be a career criminal to be a criminal, just like people who buy illegal drugs are in many cases not career criminals. Illegal guns will always be available to those who want them, but only the law abiding won't seek one. Somebody willing to go to the extremes of murder doesn't give a damn whether he has an illegal gun or not.

You miss the point entirely.

Okay. World without guns. The guy who is upset that his girlfriend is getting an abortion does not have a gun in the nightstand. He might be upset enough to be angry about it, but he isn't going to try to find a reliable illegal gun dealer and chuck out a few thousand bucks to get an illegal gun.

The point is, most murders happen because a gun is readily available in a stressful situation. So instead of using fists to resolve a problem, guns end up getting involved. Most homicides are people who know each other, not a criminal taking out a stranger.

The rest of the industrialized world has figured this out, which is why we have 19,000 homicides a year and they all have less than 1000.

You're completely wrong about most murders. Most murders are gang-related murders where people don't really know each other more than superficially.

Women are routinely beaten to death by the men, or women, in their lives. Banning guns does nothing to reduce crime; it may reduce some gun crime but then the crimes will simply be crimes instead of gun crimes.

The difference in murder rates has far more to do with gang violence and drug laws, and even culture, than it does with guns.
 
Another person who is completely wrong about everything.

Most murders happen because someone wants someone else dead. Most murders, by far, are committed by criminals with long records for whom it was already illegal for them to have a gun but, surprisingly, when planning to break the law to commit murder, they don't care about the law. Most murders are black-on-black gang-related murders. Did you know that black women are murdered at twice the rate that are white women?

Gun murders are absolutely a product of the availability of guns. Knife murders are a product of unavailability of guns while knives were available. Choking murders are a product of the unavailability of guns and knives but the availability of hands.

Most crime-of-passion murders against women are not committed with guns; women are beaten or strangled. To get the gun takes at least some bit of planning.

Except none of that is true. Most murders in the US are committed with guns.

The US had 18,319 homicides in 2019. Of those, 14,839 were committed with guns.


As for "gang related" murders, that's simply not true, either. According to the National Gang Center, between 2008 and 2012, the number of "Gang related" murders was between 1659 and 2363. In short, only a fraction of all homicides committed.



You're completely wrong about most murders. Most murders are gang-related murders where people don't really know each other more than superficially.

Simply not true. 32% of homicides in the US are family members. 51% victims are known to the killer. Only 5% are people being killed by complete strangers. (Another 12% are unknown, because they don't know who killed the person.)

1623836578365.png


Women are routinely beaten to death by the men, or women, in their lives. Banning guns does nothing to reduce crime; it may reduce some gun crime but then the crimes will simply be crimes instead of gun crimes.
Except, again, this isn't true. Going back to the above Gun Policy.org figures.

Japan completely bans guns. They had 334 homicides a year with only ONE of those involving a gun.


The United Kingdom mostly banned guns. They had 809 homicides with only 32 of those being committed with guns.


Let's use the closest analog to the US, Canada. Canada allows some gun ownership, but it's not considered a right and you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get a gun.

They had 651 homicides with only 249 of those committed with guns.


As the Onion put it...

1623836999899.png



The difference in murder rates has far more to do with gang violence and drug laws, and even culture, than it does with guns.

Naw, buddy, it's the guns. Culturally, Canada isn't really that different from us. They have gangs, they have poverty, they don't have that many guns and they don't have that many murders.

Now, if you want to make the argument that because the US doesn't deal well with other factors like racism, poverty, addiction and mental illness, you might have a point. We have a shitty record on those things. Our priorities are fucked up. It's what you can expect when a country lets a guy like Trump become President.

But the fact is, the US is the only G-7 country that allows this kind of gun policy, and we get exactly the expected result. If you let a mentally ill, addicted or poor person have easy access to a gun, you are going to get exactly these kinds of results.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top