- Jun 13, 2015
- 10,052
- 9,608
- 47
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
What's funny is that he is now at risk of being convicted of a felony, which I believe will see him stripped of his guns.It's like those morons walking around with an AR-15 on their backs just to provoke a response and record it for YouTube.
They really need to get a life.
He's now going to be testing his right to a fair trialWhat's next? Is some idiot going to start enslaving people to 'test' the 13th amendment?
Look, I know it's hard to have a nation of almost 330 million people and not have a bunch of morons in it, but my goodness...do we have to be so blatant about it all the time? It's just embarrassing, and sometimes quite scary.
No. Since he had legal cause.I wonder if the off duty fire fighter will be prosecuted for "brandishing a weapon"?
No. Since he had legal cause.
There was a "good guy with a gun" at the other Walmart. He thought it was more important to get children out of the field of fire than try to take down somebody who outgunned him. And your so-called "lesson" doesn't hold up considering there were multiple police officers in Dayton that took down the shooter in less then half a minute, and 9 people still died.Too bad "a good guy with gun" wasn't present at the other Walmart.
The lesson is clear. We need more brave souls to be carrying.
There was a "good guy with a gun" at the other Walmart. He thought it was more important to get children out of the field of fire than try to take down somebody who outgunned him. And your so-called "lesson" doesn't hold up considering there were multiple police officers in Dayton that took down the shooter in less then half a minute, and 9 people still died.
Too bad "a good guy with gun" wasn't present at the other Walmart.
The lesson is clear. We need more brave souls to be carrying.
Honestly can't think of a worse idea.
A shopping centre filled with would-be heroes with little to no meaningful training all drawing their weapons in an active shooting situation. Someone will shoot another 'good guy', someone will mistake them as the shooter and so on until the game of moronic dominoes tumbles and the situation is worse than before.
Seriously. Adding more guns in the hands of untrained civilians in a traumatic and tense situation is asking for trouble.
The logical solution is to limit the chance of it happening in the first place, not how to make it worse when it inevitably happens again because preventative measures aren't being taken to reduce the likelihood.
It's like when people argue saying they don't need a home alarm 'because if they get in, I've got mah guuuunz'. Honestly. Statistically proven you're more likely to get shot in a home invasion situation if you're armed yourself and like, go to Iraq and look at forward operating bases. Notice the huge walls and perimeter? Why's that? Surely if they get in... they've got their guns! No. It's because preventative measures are better because if you can avoid the situation happening at all it's better than reacting to it when you're already at increased risk.
Same applies to adding more guns argument.
Lot of assumptions here.
If common sense is assumption, sure.
Adding countless untrained elements with deadly force at their disposal to a situation none of them are trained for is a recipe for disaster.
But if you want to end up in a Wild West shootout in Lowe's, go for it.
Two good guys in an open-carry state, openly carrying, happen upon each other in a Walmart. Each "sees" the other reaching. Now what?
But if you want to end up in a Wild West shootout in Lowe's, go for it.