That's a fascinating image isn't it? Getting up from a confrontative conversation with a remark like that. It makes you wonder how many gun owners go through their lives with that kind of seething anger just below the surface. What I don't understand is why do the ones who don't suffer from that, the great majority, get so defensive when I ask about it.Bond was set at $400,000 for Edgar Tillery, 60, of Portage, said Porter County Prosecutor Brian Gensel.
Tillery became upset Friday during a poor job review, in which a manager told him the public and co-workers had complained about him, according to court documents. The manager told him he had 90 days to improve his performance, according to a probable cause affidavit.
After Tillery refused to change his practices, the supervisor told him he should perhaps consider resigning, to which Tillery replied, "I have an answer to that in my car," court documents said.
Tillery, a Workforce Development auditor for 19 years, returned from his car with a shotgun and fired through the glass front door an office supervisor had locked behind Tillery, according to police. He fired a second shot inside the office as his 16 co-workers fled in all directions out the back door, police said. No one was hurt.
Can we agree that whatever the percentage of dangerous rageful gun owners is, as the number of gun owners increases, so will the number who fit this description?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
It certainly is regrettable that some individuals have emotional issues, but what can we do about it when free people are innocent until proven guilty.
ReplyDeleteIt's not like criminal violence isn't already outlawed.
Again I ask, what is your solution? I'd love it if you could point to a proposed gun law that would solve this problem. I'd like to hear specifics too, no more nebulous "more gun control".
ReplyDeleteRuffRidr says:
ReplyDeleteAgain I ask, what is your solution?
His "solution," such as it is, is to stop as many people as possible from getting guns, knowing full well that the vast majority of them would never consider doing anything like the crazy bastard in this incident.
Mikeb says:
What I don't understand is why do the ones who don't suffer from that, the great majority, get so defensive when I ask about it.
Because, as I believe I've told you over and over again, you insist on using these incidents, perpetrated by a tiny few people, as justification to impose new restrictions on every one of us.
Does that make us "defensive"? Just be glad that the forcible citizen disarmament crowd hasn't pushed us to the point where we switch from defense to offense.
Mikeb: "Can we agree that whatever the percentage of dangerous rageful gun owners is, as the number of gun owners increases, so will the number who fit this description?"
ReplyDeleteOK, I agree.
And thus if you REDUCE the number of gun owners, the number of potential rageful gun owners should also decrease.
Your "solution" is obvious -- and unacceptable.
Zorro says, "..you insist on using these incidents, perpetrated by a tiny few people,.."
ReplyDelete"A tiny few?" C'mon, it's a bit more than that. I recently heard Mike V. say 3% comes to 2 million, or was it 3?
You can't very well subscribe to that and then turn around and say only "a tine few" commit wrongdoing with guns.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDelete"A tiny few?" C'mon, it's a bit more than that. I recently heard Mike V. say 3% comes to 2 million, or was it 3?
You can't very well subscribe to that and then turn around and say only "a tine few" commit wrongdoing with guns.
Sure I can, because the difference between murdering people over a poor job performance evaluation, on the one hand, and standing firm in defense of Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human rights, on the other, is enormous.
The fact that you apparently don't see that difference speaks volumes about you. Not very complimentary volumes, either, I'm afraid.
Zorro, who like everybody does his fair share of spinning, said, "Sure I can, because the difference between murdering people over a poor job performance evaluation, on the one hand, and standing firm in defense of Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human rights, on the other, is enormous."
ReplyDeleteOf course THAT would be enormous. If you limit the one to "murdering people over a poor job performance evaluation," and count the full 3% on the other hand, I'd agree.
But what if we opened up the first one to incidents of firearm's misuse, for ease of reference you can use my Famous 10% as a guideline. Then on the other side, let's get real about the 3% and what it really means. Surely you don't think 2 to 3 million people would really stand tall?