Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So by that logic shouldn't we disarm the cops and only arm them with common sense?
Absolutely. That's exactly how England does it. But they also have rational firearms laws. It's unlikely that anyone would have to stare down a would-be mass shooter.
Absolutely. That's exactly how England does it. But they also have rational firearms laws. It's unlikely that anyone would have to stare down a would-be mass shooter.
So you're in favor of the cops running around for an hour trying to find an armed officer to respond to you getting your head hacked off with a cleaver?
Or being the victim of a home invasion?
You believe disarming everyone but the criminals is a good thing then eh?
As to the title of this thread: Just how does an event where no shots are fired qualify as a shooting spree?
So you're in favor of the cops running around for an hour trying to find an armed officer to respond to you getting your head hacked off with a cleaver?
Or being the victim of a home invasion?
You believe disarming everyone but the criminals is a good thing then eh?
As to the title of this thread: Just how does an event where no shots are fired qualify as a shooting spree?
I was a gunsmith for four years and have been a gun owner for fifty-six. The older I get, the more unnecessary I see sidearms to be in any form, and the further I see formerly rational gun owners wander from the path of common sense. The NRA leadership is entirely unrecognizable from that of my youth.
I believe that America would benefit greatly from adopting a cross between Swiss and Australian gun laws. you can do your own research to find out what that means.
I was a gunsmith for four years and have been a gun owner for fifty-six. The older I get, the more unnecessary I see sidearms to be in any form, and the further I see formerly rational gun owners wander from the path of common sense. The NRA leadership is entirely unrecognizable from that of my youth.
I believe that America would benefit greatly from adopting a cross between Swiss and Australian gun laws. you can do your own research to find out what that means.
I was a gunsmith for four years and have been a gun owner for fifty-six. The older I get, the more unnecessary I see sidearms to be in any form, and the further I see formerly rational gun owners wander from the path of common sense. The NRA leadership is entirely unrecognizable from that of my youth.
I believe that America would benefit greatly from adopting a cross between Swiss and Australian gun laws. you can do your own research to find out what that means.
Just another old timer throwing those who like guns that he doesn't like under the bus.
Happens all the time.
"They should ban ar15's because I still have my Remington 700 for hunting deer and that is all anyone should need." I will laugh when they come for your "sniper rifle" that can kill at over 1k yards, it is only a mater of time.
Why? He was disarmed by a woman who used nothing but common sense. Another gun on site would only have escalated things unnecessarily.
The usual malarkey from the usual suspects who don't see the truth in front of their faces.
This guy had a gun in a school and was firing at people.
Shooting him would have ended the incident immediately with no more casualties... and no need to rely on the CHANCE that he might be dissuaded by talking alone.
But making the school a "gun free zone" simply meant that the more sure (and safer) method wasn't available... so they had to take a dangerous chance, relying on a brave lady and a shooter that might or might not have a few shreds of sanity and humanity left in him.
Getting lucky once, doesn't mean that method should be the only one used and other, safer methods forbidden.
Nah, just make being a freaky crazy person illegal.
Oh yeah, and make killing people illegal too. Or at least require them to fill out paperwork, detailing the reasons why they want to kill people. this way government can either approve or deny their request.
Are you from Texas? Our state government proposed a law that criminals are required to give their victims 24 hours notice, verbally or written, and explain the nature of the crime they plan to commit. It was not passed, but hey, it was proposed.
In 1973, Rep. James “Jim” Kaster (D-El Paso) filed HB 110, which proposed to make it a crime to commit a crime without providing at least 24 hours' notice to the intended victim. The bill did not pass and did not become law. You can read the proposed statute entitled "Failure to Warn Victim of Crime" in the LRL Legislative Archive System. Source: LRL's current exhibit in the Library, "Texas Laws: Fact or Fiction?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
