>

I find that hard to believe, but okay. Weird headline tbh. ~~The article never mentions that fact anywhere.~~
Edit: I meant nowhere in the article was it mentioned as a direct quote, nor was mentioned in the interviews that I've seen. Oops. Oh well lol.
I saw a presser he did briefly earlier today and this guy just seems so humble. He wouldn’t take questions about himself - just said he wanted the focus to be on the victims. His family says he’s very introverted and they’re all kind of shocked that their reserved brother/son disarmed a murderer on a killing spree. I hope Tsay gets the privacy he wants but I also hope he realizes that he really is a hero who saved lives and prevented this tragedy from being worse than it was. >

They will forget about him. The media doesn't like to showcase these folks. >

As he was shown with full name on ABC's Good Morning America? The same article that was mentioned on BBC? What are you on about? >

For long. Its gone in a cycle or two. >

Duh? Unless this guy disarms another shooter next week what else would there be to talk about in a news cycle or two? >

"When I got the courage." He conquered his fear quickly and did some boss ish. I salute my brotha >

Dicks out for Brandon Tsay >

This guys is a fucking hero.  Be like this guy. >

We shouldn’t have to be. He didn’t want to be that guy, I guarantee you. >

Real heroes never do >

Consider that on average something like 5% of the population carries a gun at a given moment. So there are just way more unarmed people out there. >

Okay, so why are people giving their lives so that 5% of the population can be useless? >

That’s not how stats work >

Happy to play the stat game if you want. 
The laws that let 5% of the population carry guns around (who have no measurable impact on the crime rate and only intervene in 3% of shootings), also directly arm 70% of mass shooters.
That's what people are being told to accept by the gun owners frothily braying about "good guys with guns".
Do you want to get into spicier stats, like how the people claiming they're going to "defend their family" are actually putting their family in much greater danger? >

All the talk about good "Defensive Gun Use", instances where some gun owner stops a problem situation, ignore that these are subjective, biased, and often self-reported incidents. We'll see things like "check out this DGU, where a guy stopped an argument from escalating by showing off his gun". But that's not a crime being stopped. There's no proof that argument was going to escalate. Hell, flashing a gun is an escalation! And then we run into the myriad instances where the person "ending the argument" is the one who started it, knowing that they could get to feel like a big man by engineering scenarios that flashing their gun can put them on top of.
I'm reminded of a story from a few years back that was all over Reddit. Guy stops an argument in a supermarket parking lot with his gun, clap clap clap, what a great DGU, guy's a hero. Was all over several subs, even non-gun ones. Then it happens again a month later, same guy. Wow! This dude's a regular parking lot superhero! Again, the story makes the rounds on Reddit.
Then it happens again, but this time he shoots someone. Oh, whoops, the story's starting to fall apart. Now people are looking into him. Now they're seeing that he's previously shot someone. Now they're seeing that he routinely gets into arguments with random people. Now it's coming out that this guy loads up with his gun, goes out instigating fights, then pulls the gun whenever he wants his "win". Dude didn't solve any problems he didn't create on purpose. And this is not a unique phenomenon. Most of us know people like this, but not all of them are using guns to do it. >


the myriad instances where the person "ending the argument" is the one who started it, knowing that they could get to feel like a big man by engineering scenarios that flashing their gun can put them on top of.

we call that "the Rittenhouse" >

Maybe if you know absolutely nothing about the case. >

i watched plenty of the trial. i know the case and seen the videos. Rittenhouse deliberately put himself into a toxic scenario with a loaded weapon where he could potentially use it on someone. 
whether or not he got attacked first is irrelevant. he chose to travel to an area which he did not live and chose to present as a threat to others (which carrying a loaded AR-15 is absolutely a fucking open "come at me bro" threat) in the midst of a serious protest. he chose that situation and people died as a result. he got to kill someone and use self defense as excuse which is exactly why he put himself in that situation. >


Rittenhouse deliberately put himself into a toxic scenario

So did everybody else there. Not illegal. 

with a loaded weapon

So did many others, but nobody attacked them. The only one we know of who was illegally carrying a loaded weapon was the one who tried to shoot Rittenhouse. 

where he could potentially use it on someone.

Not illegal. Also, he ran from every conflict, so the idea that he intended to kill anyone is plainly absurd. 

whether or not he got attacked first is irrelevant. 

It absolutely is relevant, both legally and morally. 

he chose to travel to an area which he did not live

That was his town, his job, friends, and family there. A trip there is less than the average commute within Los Angeles. When you live in a small town, the nearest big city is also your city. But at least you didn't bring up the irrelevant "state lines" bullshit. Also, two of his attackers were from much further away and had no connections to the city. 

which carrying a loaded AR-15 is absolutely a fucking open "come at me bro" threat

Uh, no. It says "Don't attack me." Unfortunately, a violent off-his-meds mentally ill serial child rapist couldn't read, and then the mob couldn't either. All of his attackers had sordid violent criminal histories, and violent criminals tend to not care. 
Your entire logic is the same as "If she hadn't worn that short skirt to the seedy bar, then she wouldn't have been raped." You're blaming the victim. >

Note to the people who say that "It's not the guns."
When the gunman didn't have a gun anymore, he couldn't shoot anyone. Should be kind of obvious, but for some reason, it isn't.
If he hadn't had 2 guns, he wouldn't have been able to shoot hinself either. Just kind or pointing that out. >


Granted, Canada has more long guns as opposed to handguns in the States, but if someone wanted to cause havoc with a deer rife it would be just as, if not more, horrific.

Don't hand wave this away or lie about a hypothetical situation that simply doesn't happen. All across the world, countries assess the risk of certain firearms being privately owned and the procedures that need to be followed to reduce those risks as much as possible.
It's why fully automatic weapons are near universally banned. They pose a huge danger to the general public and their only advantage during legal use is making men's dicks all tingly.
Generally, the same is true for handguns as well. Being easily concealable and quick to deploy, they're unquestionably the best guns for general crime, from robbing a liquor store to shooting your girlfriend in the face for trying to leave you. Outside of America, most countries have laws that reflect that.
It's a complex issue but the kinds of guns that are sold and the effort you have to go to purchase them absolutely plays a role and it's reflected right there in the death toll. >

You can make most guns quite concealable with a hacksaw if you were so inclined.  You can 3D print guns.  If you're a talented metal worker, you can make them with a lathe and a drill press.
I'm not advocating for fully automatic weapons.  America has a weird loophole where you can legally own full-auto guns that were manufactured before 1986 but there are actually somewhat (at least by American standards) stringent background checks.  To my knowledge, there have been zero mass shootings committed by someone using a legally owned full-auto, but I could be wrong about that.
Strict gun control laws don't always seem to have the desired effect, either.  Look at Mexico.
It's a very complicated issue that I don't have all the answers to.  I stand by my assertion that the problem is more of a societal one than just a gun ownership one. >


You can make most guns quite concealable with a hacksaw if you were so inclined.  You can 3D print guns.  If you're a talented metal worker, you can make them with a lathe and a drill press.

Mass shooters and criminals in aren't using sawn off guns, 3D printed guns, nor home made guns. They're using weapons that were legally purchased, straw purchased through legal channels or stolen from somebody who legally purchased them.
But I'll do you a deal. You vote to support gun control and in return, you can demand solutions from me for the sudden rise in mass shootings with these home made guns. 
I won't even insist that I'm given the 25+ years that the pro-gun community has been failing to solve the problem, or claim you have to wait until they match the "more than 1 a day" that the current gun laws are running at.

I'm not advocating for fully automatic weapons.

Crazy, it's almost like you're capable of acknowledging that certain firearms are more risk to society than they're worth...

America has a weird loophole where you can legally own full-auto guns that were manufactured before 1986 but there are actually somewhat (at least by American standards) stringent background checks.

... and that you can restrict firearms without enterprising criminals making them out mashed potatoes and super glue instead, and all it takes is some stringent background checks!

To my knowledge, there have been zero mass shootings committed by someone using a legally owned full-auto, but I could be wrong about that.

The National Firearms Act was enacted to curb gangland mass shootings with machine guns, such as the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre.
Once upon a time, America was capable of enacting gun laws, even if it meant some people made slightly less money profiting off the deaths of others.

Strict gun control laws don't always seem to have the desired effect, either.  Look at Mexico.

The majority of firearms recovered from crimes in Mexico are traced back to America. They're straw purchased in places like Texas (because it's trivial to do) and smuggled over the border the same way drugs are.

It's a very complicated issue that I don't have all the answers to.  I stand by my assertion that the problem is more of a societal one than just a gun ownership one.

It is a complicated issue, but "bloodthirsty extremists just being able to walk into a shop and buy a gun" is one of the easier parts of the problem to understand, so I'm skeptical you're really trying. >

I live in Canada, you can't just walk into a store and buy a gun.  Well, you can, but first you have to get what is called a PAL, sort of like a drivers license.  It involves background checks and taking a short course.  There's a second tier if you want to buy handguns or other "restricted" firearms but they are basically making it impossible to own any of those anyway.
There have been multiple recent homicides committed with "zip" or homemade guns in the city I live in.  Criminals use sawed off shotguns all the time.
You can make whatever laws you like and the cartels will still get guns.  The way to tackle that problem is to legalize drugs, although it would be asinine to not concede the proximity to the US is a huge problem. 
So in your mind, anyone who owns or wishes to own a gun is a "bloodthirsty extremist"? >


I live in Canada, you can't just walk into a store and buy a gun.  Well, you can, but first you have to get what is called a PAL, sort of like a drivers license.  It involves background checks and taking a short course.  There's a second tier if you want to buy handguns or other "restricted" firearms but they are basically making it impossible to own any of those anyway.

How about that, you were fully aware of everything I said this whole time, typing away from your country with way better gun laws and way less gun crime.

There have been multiple recent homicides committed with "zip" or homemade guns in the city I live in.

"Zip Gun is the name applied to a single-shot, crude, home-made firearm". None of the ones I've been able to find pictures of have even a basic sight. So they're not exactly mass shooting material.
Google hasn't managed to find me a single article about a homicide with a home made gun nor one that explicitly mentions a sawn off shotgun.
These stats indicate that handguns are by far the most common, a problem you've already stated has been addressed.

You can make whatever laws you like and the cartels will still get guns.

From the magic gun fairy? 
They're getting their guns from America. Your gut feeling that they'll just summon guns into existence from somewhere else is no justification whatsoever for not making efforts to curtail the gun smuggling.
Any policy that makes guns more difficult for criminals to buy, riskier to steal or worse in quality is absolutely worth it.
This damaged pro-gun rhetoric isn't considered valid for any other problems. We don't scrap food safety laws because "people get sick anyway", or give up on incremental progress in vehicle safety because "people still die in car crashes".
Because its dumb as fuck.

So in your mind, anyone who owns or wishes to own a gun is a "bloodthirsty extremist"?

Nope, otherwise I would have said that. But if you want to hurl absurd, deliberate misinterpretations at each other, I'll just go ahead and assume you think that every domestic terrorist is just a poor, misunderstood, "responsible gun owner". >


I've never once said there shouldn't be some reasonable measures to prohibit mentally unfit people from buying guns.

Nor did I specifically claim you did. These kinds of mixups just happen when half way through a discussion of Americas failed gun laws you announce that you're actually talking about Canadian gun laws, but also the mass shootings in America.

The cartels literally buy military ordinance.  Lots of countries manufacture guns.  These billion dollar criminal enterprises would find a way, and are already increasingly sourcing guns elsewhere.

And buying that military ordinance comes at a much greater risk and cost to both the cartels and their suppliers. Personally, I fully support things that make the cartels life shitter and think we should keep it going.
I wonder if they'd have been able to do any of this without the constant stream of money and guns flowing South from America.

These billion dollar criminal enterprises would find a way, and are already increasingly sourcing guns elsewhere.

And are those other places also staunchly insisting that nothing is done to prevent it? Because I think that most other countries would be livid to find their privately purchased firearms in the hands of cartels who will literally skin people alive.

I'm surprised they haven't started building their own weapons factories

Yeah crazy, even these multi-billion dollar, highly organised criminal organisations aren't making their own firearms like you insist domestic terrorists and minor criminals would do the moment it became less convenient to buy a gun.

They build submarines.

Oh they can build their own submarines? I guess America may as well start selling them nuclear subs and torpedoes then. After all, they'll get them anyway and we shouldn't let that profit get away.

Again, there are many countries - Switzerland, Norway, Lichtenstein, Canada - that have comparable firearm ownership rates to the US, and they don't often have mass shootings

There's also many countries that have far stricter gun laws and far fewer guns and also don't have the mass shootings and gun crime rates of America, so clearly that's an option too. >

sigh.  gunsmithing isn't some mystical lost art.  there's a good vice documentary about how low level philipino street gangs make fully functioning semi automatic pistols out of scrap metal. 
You fail to appreciate the scale of the Mexican cartels, they are essentially equipping an army, they need industrial scale production.  If you read the article, they buy it off the Columbian army and corrupt officers in both the police and every branch of the armed forces in Mexico.
I'm surprised Raytheon hasn't gotten into the selling torpedoes to the Sinaloa cartel game, an untapped market.
Lots of people in other places have guns and don't feel the need to constantly perpetrate random mass shootings.  Most of the gun violence in America is due to systemic inequality and the drug war.  The mass shootings are harder to figure out and speak to some deep rooted sickness at a societal level. >

Huh. As it turns out, the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy without a gun. >

Not always - sometimes Kyle Rittenhouse will kill them
Edit: to clarify my sarcastic comment, I meant sometimes Kyle Rittenhouse will kill the good guy without a gun >

Shooters like Rittenhouse are the problem >

That’s what I meant >

Ah, seems there was a misunderstanding. The interwebs giveth, as it taketh away. >

No worries, just as long as strangers on the internet don’t think I’m some sort of Kyle Rittenhouse apologist or something godforsaken like that. >

Most of us wish we would react like Brandon under similar circumstances. Most of us wouldn’t. What an incredible human. >

Nice job by this man. It’s either fight or flight and most people run. He stood his ground against an armed attacker. God bless. >

Don't forget freeze...a lot of people freeze. >

Run, hide, fight (try not to freeze!)  It's very instinctual and normal to freeze, bravo to this chap >

I’m curious how he moved that fast with those enormous brass balls between his legs. >

He should never have to buy a beer ever again. 
It’s such a shame that people have to deal with gun owners. >

Well done to this guy. 
Though there's a reason I suggest everyone familiarize themselves with firearms if they live in a place where they're prevalent. Knowing how to safely handle one isn't a bad idea if you ever come across one for any reason. >

Brave as fuck but he's also lucky that the person he's wrestling the gun away from is a 70 year old >

The shooter still beat Tsay around the head. You can see the bruise on his nose bridge. In other interviews, Tsay stated he is bruised on the back of his head and around his upper body. 70 or not, the shooter didn't want to give up the gun without a fight.
Plus... The shooter had a gun.
(It has been reported the gun was a Cobray. If so, the model of gun may have saved Tsay. Tsay reports the shooter was "preparing the gun" but it seemingly took a long time giving him a chance to wrestle it away. Cobrays are famous for their shitty magazines and weighing a ton, both of which probably made it slower for the shooter to "prepare" the gun.) >

A Spirit of love for others. How do we bottle this humble nature that immediately listened to that spirit/voice/premonition to step in and fight for the sake of safety and love.  He didn’t pull out his phone. He fought.  This is a special human. Say his name. Brandon Tsay.  Thank you, Brandon. >

Well done, Brandon Tsay: next time he'll have pepper spray
Let's go Brandon!! ;-) >

SEE? He's a good guy with a gun. NOW I mean. NOW he has a gun, once he took it from a bad guy, who was probably antivacabgt+.
I am making a sad joke, obviously. Keep your garters up grandma. >

Let's go Brandon! Way to go, thank you for saving who knows how many other people that the shooter might have tried to attack. >

I don’t think people use that phrase, with all its baggage, to actually cheer on Brandons >

If the right can co-opt random phrases and words, there's nothing wrong with everyone else doing the same. >

I agree in spirit but we’re probably too close to the phrase’s origins to not think there’s something backhanded about using it genuinely instead of “well done Brandon” or something else unloaded with subtext. >

Why, no talk of the obvious connection between these two shootings? The odds of two Asian men, both elderly, committing these crimes on the same day in the same state is astronomical. WTF. >

We have a very high Asian population in the Bay Area (close to Half Moon Bay) and LA (Monterey Park is in LA county) also has a significant Asian population. Their ethnicities aren't that significant given the shooting locations. >

This is a lie. Everyone in California has seen a cop walk by. >

I stopped reading the article when it said “semi automatic assault pistol” >

sigh
Shall not be infringed.
Leaves >

Laws can be changed. Sometimes they should. >

You set a dangerous precedent in that situation. Stop being a communist. >

This really a necessary headline/additional story needed? For something rather common. 
For the record, he’s a hero. This is more the media being weird. >

Is it common, though? In the US most WalMarts have guns in full view, near camping and fishing gear. To never have seen one in real life is kind of a stretch. 
The media is weird.