the difference between guns and other potentially dangerous objects is that in the latter case-only laws preventing misuse generally exist. No one wants to ban cars that can go 120 MPH, just driving that fast on a public road. no one wants to ban alcohol (well there might be a few kooks who didn't learn history)-we just ban being intoxicated in public
yet the anti gun nut cases want to ban some types of guns
Personally I think he should have shot the guy.It would have saved tax payers money and ensured that the victims do not have to go through any more grief than what they already have.And lastly, well done on the part of that man it shows what responsible gun ownership is all about.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
And that is not a statement of a responsible gun owner, being a gun owner doesn't give one the right to make those kind of decisions. Unless you act to defend yourself or the lives of others, there is no place to use deadly force and a responsible gun owner knows this and doesn't seek excuses to kill someone like saving tax payer money or deciding the victims would prefer it, who are you to speak for them?
I would disagree somewhat. A knife is a deadly weapon every bit as much as a gun; a knife can kill very readily. When I was in LE we had many training sessions about knives, mainly to teach us to take them very seriously. A man can run 25 feet and stab you in the time it takes to draw a pistol and shoot him. Stab wounds are often fatal.
The man had already cut or stabbed more than one person; he had already committed Attempted Murder. Shooting him is a reasonable response; he is fortunate that the armed citizen who stopped his rampage before it reached "national news body count level" desired not to kill him if it could be avoided. Had he pulled the trigger without warning it would have been a justifiable shoot no question.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
Can you define what these mysterious "reasonable restrictions" actually are? How much they will cost the "reasonable" and law abiding gun owner in both money and possible time in prison? For example Texas has decided that to carry a handgun in a car is LEGAL WITHOUT A CCW PERMIT yet to carry on the person is NOT. In other words, a driver's license is a partial CCW permit but requires NO training or fee, but if one does not drive then they must travel UNARMED or pay $240 for a CCW permit.
Last edited by ttwtt78640; 07-27-12 at 06:34 PM.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.