This could have been one of those mass shootings which a good guy with a gun stopped. Or, it could have been a case of an unfit and dangerous guy with a gun killing people.
The first one is only possible, the second one is definite.
Gun availability is the problem, tighter restrictions is the solution.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Mikeb, did you watch the video? An armed good guy did stop this incident from continuing. Off duty cops in many communities are encouraged and even required to carry a concealed firearm. This good guy with his gun shot the attacker. That stopped the shooting from going any farther. What would have happened without the armed good guy on the scene?
ReplyDeleteSo, in reality, it's a case of the first being definite, and the second being unknown, since we know nothing about the bad guy here. We don't know if your screening proposals would have caught him. Some people are just normal until they're not.
Of course I watched the video. I'm the one who wrote, "This could have been one of those mass shootings which a good guy with a gun stopped."
ReplyDeleteMy focus however is on the lax laws which you support which ensure that any asshole who wants to can easily get a gun.
We already have laws that restrict the rights of felons to own firearms. When you advocate further restricting people's rights remember that they are all linked. Are you trying to go back to the Jim Crow laws? Remember that it was the Democrats who put those in place in the first place, it seems fishy that they claim to have changed their racist ways yet want the same laws they did when they were openly racists. Why is it that the areas with the largest black populations are controlled by Democrats and have the strictest gun laws? I realize the Democratic party was against the Civil Rights movement, but someone needs to inform them that our inner cities aren't their plantations.
ReplyDelete