Penn and Teller - Suzanna's Gun Encounter Story

	Duration: 02:45 minutes Upload Time: 07-04-18 22:03:53 User: Sidewinder77 :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day
Description: From Penn & Teller's TV series. Suzanna regrets gun control. For more go to Sho.com/ptbs On Saturday, October 16, 1991, Suzanna Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's in Killeen. She had left her handgun in her car to comply with Texas state law at the time which forbade carrying a concealed weapon. When George Hennard drove his truck into the cafeteria and opened fire on the patrons, Hupp instinctively reached into her purse for her weapon, but it was in her vehicle. Her father, Al, tried to rush Hennard and was shot in the chest. As the gunman reloaded, Hupp escaped through a broken window and believed that her mother, Ursula, was behind her. Instead she watched as Hennard killed her parents and twenty-one other persons. He also wounded some twenty others. As a survivor of the Luby's massacre, Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws. She said that had there been a second chance to prevent the slaughter, she would have violated the Texas law and carried the handgun inside her purse into the restaurant.
Comments
ResponsibleGunOwner ::: Favorites The black market exists everywhere. In Australia, many thousands of guns that were 'destroyed' somehow ended up back on the streets. Some government corruption, perhaps? America's problem is crime; more specifically -- gangs. With the heavy influx of illegals and MS13 gang members coming up from Mexico and Central America, the problem will only get worse. I'll keep my gun, thank you very much. 07-10-02 14:33:40 __________________________________________________
ResponsibleGunOwner ::: Favorites By 'many', I mean the ones I've met in business. I have a client that deals heavily with the UK and Australia. We regularly train classes of 20 to 30 Australian employees. In conversations, I have yet to hear one speak out in favor of the gun ban. They acknowledge the lower 'gun deaths', but don't feel comfortable giving up their personal defense to the state. 07-10-02 14:31:45 __________________________________________________
rhammersley ::: Favorites I'll give you one concession -- you've got so many guns on the streets, such an entrenched black market trade in them, and such a gun toting mentality, that there is now no realistic chance of ridding yourself of this scourge. So, to be fair, I guess you need a gun to protect yourself because you live in such a dangerous social environment. The more guns ya got, the more guns ya need! Strange but true! What an insane situation! 07-10-02 14:19:28 __________________________________________________
rhammersley ::: Favorites I guess by "many" you merely mean more than one person because I know for a fact that at the local, state and federal levels of government and in all forms of domestic media this debate simply does not take place in Australia. There is a bipartisan and civil consensus that gun restrictions are absolutely necessary in order to avoid the gun flooded status quo that exists in the US. Believe me, those "not happy about the gun ban" are the lunatic (yes we've got a few of them too) fringe minority. 07-10-02 14:18:47 __________________________________________________
ResponsibleGunOwner ::: Favorites Self evident was your comment: "innocent people that get killed because of the farcical availability of firearms that exists..." Guns are a government- and media-driven agenda. I can name 20 things that cause more annual deaths than handguns, but we don't go after those because it's not fashionable. I'm glad you're happy with what your government has done to you in Australia. I know for a fact that many Australians are not happy about the gun ban. 07-10-02 12:45:38 __________________________________________________
ResponsibleGunOwner ::: Favorites You're missing the point. Guns contribute to gun deaths just as pools contribute to drownings and automobiles contribute to car crashes. The question is "Do we eliminate a useful tool because some people area irresponsible?" Less that 1% of all guns in the U.S. are involved in gun crimes or accidental deaths, yet you would advocate destroying all of them. 07-10-02 12:40:46 __________________________________________________
rhammersley ::: Favorites [b] I would have thought it self evident that I was talking about gun possession, not gun availability. How many 12 year olds in 1900 OWNED hand guns and semi-automatic weapons? You can't shoot someone without a fucken (excuse my French) gun!!! Does it "hold water" now? 07-10-02 04:34:26 __________________________________________________
rhammersley ::: Favorites [a] Oh, and another nice try with the misrepresentation of my comments again! Do you ever engage in argumentation by confronting the opposing argument as it stands, or do you always have to "give it a sneaky tweak" so that it suits your limited, one dimensional, stock-standard, rehearsed responses. 07-10-02 04:34:11 __________________________________________________
rhammersley ::: Favorites (B) I guess the main bone of contention is your inane and steadfast adherence to this notion that gun possession has ZERO correlation to gun deaths. What then do you put your 12000 gun homicides a year down to then? (That's just homicides, let alone accident and suicide.) Bare in mind that the Australian gun murder rate is 7% that of the U.S. Any theories? Or don't you dwell on things like that? 07-10-02 04:33:50 __________________________________________________
rhammersley ::: Favorites (A) WOW! There's so much that I could take you up on in those last two comments, not least of all this continual and mindless use of this term "nanny-state", how you and the rest of the gun lobby fail to qualify it's meaning, and the disturbing neo-liberal extremist connotations of the word. The "sharp objects/child locks" clause was also a hair-raising sojourn into lunacy, but let's leave all that aside for the moment. 07-10-02 04:31:48 __________________________________________________