Sunday, January 2, 2011

Springfield Ohio - 2 Dead

A shootout with police resulted in one dead shooter and one dead cop.

This took place in Ohio where the gun rights folks are still celebrating their latest victory. The direct connection between the laws they support and the guns which are in the possession of unfit people conveniently escapes them.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

6 comments:

  1. It states on there that the man had a history with the Sheriff's office. This man had a criminal background.

    If you were more assertive on making the laws more affective you would have an easier time. I support owning a firearm but I don't see how some people have access. This guy had a history. Why is he allowed to purchase and own guns? He clearly was violent.

    Not everyone is fit at all times either. Taking away guns will not magically fix the issue. No gun for someone having a meltdown means they will use a knife or rock or fists or a car.

    Fact is that shat is gonna fly so it is best to be prepared when it does. Awareness is best in these times.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "This guy had a history. Why is he allowed to purchase and own guns? He clearly was violent."

    He is not allowed to purchase and own guns. Criminals seem to not worry about committing crimes, hence the term c-r-i-m-i-n-a-l.

    Do yo really believe these guys would actually have a conscious thought like this: "I would really like to murder a police officer, but as I am not allowed to possess a gun, so I better not."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Do yo really believe these guys would actually have a conscious thought like this: "I would really like to murder a police officer, but as I am not allowed to possess a gun, so I better not."

    I think you need to re-read my posting as you seem confused. We both are making the same point. Note : 'Not everyone is fit at all times either. Taking away guns will not magically fix the issue. No gun for someone having a meltdown means they will use a knife or rock or fists or a car." What I am saying here is that criminals, pychos and lunatics will find a way to harm no matter what.

    'He is not allowed to purchase and own guns. Criminals seem to not worry about committing crimes, hence the term c-r-i-m-i-n-a-l.'

    Yes, this is what I call him in the second sentence of my post. I am responding to the OP regarding him thinking that all gun owners support unfit people having them.

    Your last paragraph doesn't need an explained response as by now you should have realized that you completely missed all my points and didn't even fully read the post.

    ReplyDelete
  4. All right Anonymous. Don't get too upset with Fat White Man. I have to admit your ideas were not as clear as they might have been.

    For myself, I don't think legitimate gun owners want unfit people to have guns any more than we do. But, you support policies that make it possible. That's where you're wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "For myself, I don't think legitimate gun owners want unfit people to have guns any more than we do. But, you support policies that make it possible. That's where you're wrong."

    What policies? What do I support? Have you gleaned anything from any of my posts? I don't know where I am wrong and I most certainly think you don't know where I am wrong. I will sum it up for you though.

    I believe in laws made with common sense and those that follow those laws to have direction in the form of common sense. Yes, this country has the right to bear arms, it however carries with it the responsibility to carry them sensibly.

    Am I still wrong? Anymore labels you wanna throw around? The problem with gunloons and your anti-gun folk is that generally the ones doing the talking shouldn't be. You're too close minded to listen to the opposition and they the same. Sad really... carry on.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous, I'm very sorry if my use of "you" did not include you yourself. What I'm talking about is the resistance from gun owners that we see against such common sense ideas as background checks, owner licensing and gun registration.

    Many gun owners actually do favor those policies, but the ones who are passionate to write blogs and comment on them usually are in the resistance game.

    Where do you stand on those policies? Are you the same Anonymous Canadian from the other thread?

    ReplyDelete