Lanza was a law abiding citizen until he picked up a firearm used to commit mass murder. I wasn't responding to gun control which is a whole different subject; rather statistics on law abiding citizens who became non law abiding citizens involving the use of guns. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else in this thread.
He may well have killed his mother BEFORE he picked up the gun. If he picked up the gun with the intent of using it illegally, right then he was not a law abiding citizen Do you have any suggested solutions to incidents such as the Sandy Hook Massacre? in fact do you have any suggestions about what seems to bother you about people having guns?
No suggestions; as long as there are guns in society, you will have innocent people die. If enough people die and enough American's get fed up enough, you'll have change otherwise it'll be the status quo.
For the most part it seems that Democrats are dying. It's only when the innocent are affected do I start to care.
so you have no solution. Then why do you worry so much. Most of those dying are scumbags. we need to make sure more honest citizens have access to firearms and get training. I like laws that prevent felons having access to civil and criminal courts if they are shot while engaging in a violent felony. Sort of "make my day" immunity. The more thugs who get whacked, the safer society is.
Were the 20 children at Newtown scumbags? What about the 6 teachers? Were they scumbags as well? or the 9 people in Charleston attending bible school?? Were they scumbags as well?
you are engaging in dishonest arguments now. I said MOST of those dying. Do you UNDERSTAND MOST? it doesn't mean EVERY or ALL. You damn well know I didn't mean innocent children or church goers but since you are losing the argument, you dishonestly misrepresented what I wrote.
I never said you said all; please do no veer from the topic; I asked a simple question based on your initial response; can you answer it or not? All I know is a simple yes or no.
They are the great exception, not the rule. Dylan Roof should never have gotten a gun--his being able to buy a gun was a mistake in the system--basically somebody didn't enter the data on his drug arrest correctly. Roof was not a law-abiding citizen--he was a drug user. Holmes was in a similar situation--a mental health professional contemplated putting him on a danger list and having him committed, but decided not to. Regardless, neither case has anything to do with "Stand your ground."
Do you understand simple English? Most does not mean all. Saying that most people who die from gunshot are scumbags is not anywhere close to the same as saying any particular individual or individuals that dies from gunshot is a scumbag. Exaggerate much?
oh don't try that crap with me. You know damn well what I was referring to and it was felons who get killed by other felons. Your argument was clearly dishonest and you intentionally misrepresented what I said in an effort to try to justify your blatant anti gun bias with the blood of dead children and church-goers
They were innocent people that short-sighted laws rendered helpless and without the means to defend themselves from an unprovoked attack. They were denied their right to life by being denied the right to defend their lives. No, I'm not saying grade-school kids at Newtown should have been "packing", but somebody on the school's staff should have been. Somebody at Charleston should have been prepared to defend themselves as well; but tragically, people fail to take responsibility for their own security too often these days.
While I'm flattered you believe that I'm a mind reader, it so happens that I'm not. Your answer is patently dishonest since you refuse to admit to the obvious. Be factual next time and we might be able to agree on some parts.
Nice to hear that someone here besides myself who believe that the dead people you mentioned were not scumbags as implied by others as that term cheapens life. The problem with your line of thought--while noble--is that not all, but many teachers are unwilling to take the risks involved particularly litigation when pulling a gun and blasting away when they might hit innocents and number one, have to live with the thought that they killed an innocent by mistake (and have to face the family of the deceased) and possible lawsuits that would most likely follow. That's why many schools have resource officers who are trained to handle among other things possible shootings that might occur.
Since I've not had any personal discussions with any of the teachers nor have I read anything indicating that any of them wished that they had I cannot say yes I have.
First, all the 'Blood in the streets hysterics predicted by the antis has never happened' nor has blood run in the classrooms by teachers blasting away where they have been allowed to carry. Second, I have been part of a program that is training educators in my state where they are allowed to carry and volunteer to do so and many have enrolled in classes so your assertion is baseless in regard to the fear of litigation. All you have to offerer on this topic is emotional supposition based on your agenda, not based in reality and fact...not unlike your opposition to suppressors.
Simple solution to your concern. Don't go to Florida, I'm sure they won't mind. And the data shows your argument is wrong. About 34 states have stand your ground laws, nobody gets away with murder by saying "He looked at me sideways and I was afraid for my life". Stand your ground is a not a license to murder, there is judicial review.
Sure, the typical wail that bullets will be flying wildly and bystanders will be dropping like flies. Gun banners have made that claim for 40 years in every state that debated stand your ground, castle doctrine, and shall issue concealed carry. Blood will run in the streets, every road rage incident will result in a gun battle with innocents killed at every intersection, accidental shootings will be a daily occurrence. And the gun banners claims have never come true, not even close. More guns, more people carrying, and less crime. 40 years of data proves you wrong.
How many documented times have teachers blasted away in the classroom at armed perpetrators? Do you have credible links to share with all of us. Tell me, how many thousands of teachers have you personally trained in your state? Out of that how many have signed personal waivers where the school district absorbs full responsibility for teachers who are armed and should they kill an innocent child and/or teacher?? Can you provide a link showing a list of schools in your state affirming such? My concerns are rational; on the other hand your concerns are strictly hysterical in nature because someone dares to offer an differing opinion. Shame on you.
