There were four terror attacks – all with knives, cars and axes – in Israel yesterday.
In one, a Palestinian man rammed a bus stop full of mostly elderly Jews, and climbed out of his car to finish one of them off with an ax. (WARNING: Watching someone getting murdered with an ax is just as disturbing as you might expect it is. You’re been warned).
It was then…
…that a good guy with a gun – an Israeli with a legal permitted handgun – shot the terrorist.
As has been noted here before, the Israelis have slipped a bit into the madness of gun control – but thankfully not too far. We’ve seen many examples of good mensches with guns ending terror attacks.
There and here.
I saw part of the video yesterday, but it ended before the final scene, when the terrorist got up and attempted to fight. The Israeli should have double tapped him while he lay there the first time. Looks like in the end he put him down for good.
My wife just got back from Israel. She is shocked by the lack of reporting in the western world about the magnitude and ferocity of knifings of civilians in Israel. When Israelis are concerned about this, it is more than just a passing fad. They are bracing for a full out war. And in the West – crickets!
The Israeli should have double tapped him while he lay there the first time.
Looks like proof of what we were taught in carry permit class: under an adrenaline dump, you’re probably not going to have the level of self-control to go for anything that intricate. Shoot center-mass, and hopefully have enough ammo so you don’t run out of rounds before your attacker runs out of fight.
Either that was one tough muzzie, or that mensch needs to spend some time at the range.
If that had happened in St. Paul, and the shooter was a local conservative blogger, would he be prosecuted?
You’re thinking “defense of others” but what about State v. Bishop, A07-1435 and A08-1339, in which the Court of Appeals says defense of others includes a duty to retreat? If A attacks B and C intervenes, who had the duty to retreat – B, the initial victim, or C, the guy who intervened?
My understanding was the C stepped into B’s shoes. Since B had a duty to retreat, C can shoot only if B fulfilled that duty. But I didn’t understand that C had a separate duty to retreat, because that would leave B lying there to be killed while C scampers to safety.
Still, where the law is ambiguous and prosecutors are zealous . . . .
Hill….I wonder if he had a very small caliber firearm. Or is the Arab wearing body armor?
Chuck and Hill’s – I’m gonna guess it’s a combination of:
1) Terrorist jacked up on adrenaline.
2) Small caliber; Europeans are fond of .380s, 9mm Makarov, 9mm Police (basically a .380), or even .32/7.65mm, all of which have about half or less the hitting power of a 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, or .45ACP.
the type of ammunition would make a difference and not all the varieties available in the states are permitted elsewhere – say for instance he was shooting .40 FMJ 165 gr instead of .40 JHP 180 gr Hydra-Shock . The profile for anchoring the terrorist would change significantly.
Most likely more than adrenaline. Since Israel does have draconian gun laws, I bet it was a service firearm, not a carry as we would define it. As such, it was probably no less than 9mm. Besides, from that close a range, a normal person would not get up from a well-placed .22. Terrorist must have been hopped up on drugs to get excited about all the virgins he was about to get.
I figured it out. Since there is no way terrorist should be getting up after being shot repeatedly at close range, even if the terrorist was hopped up on drugs, shooter must have been using rubber bullets.