Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Here we go again

  1. #1
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    14 year old kid goes on shooting rampage in Cleveland, Ohio School.

    When are the people that be realize that people are not going to abey a Gun Free Zone.

  2. #2
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    Gee, I guess we haven't figured out that shootings occur at victim disarmement zones.

    And as usual, the shooter committed suicide.

    So how do you stop somebody who is intent on committing suicide from taking others with him? How about denying him easy targets.

    You may even save the shooters life. If your eating your gun, the success rate for a fatal shot is really high. Whereas, if somebody else takes down the shooter, there is a good possibility of the shooter surviving.

    Of course, I believe that all human life is sacred. The use of lethal force is perfectly justified when people's lives are in imminent danger. The moment the threat is neutralized, the use of lethal force is no longer justified.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    BarryKirk wrote:
    Gee, I guess we haven't figured out that shootings occur at victim disarmement zones.

    And as usual, the shooter committed suicide.

    So how do you stop somebody who is intent on committing suicide from taking others with him? How about denying him easy targets.

    You may even save the shooters life. If your eating your gun, the success rate for a fatal shot is really high. Whereas, if somebody else takes down the shooter, there is a good possibility of the shooter surviving.

    Of course, I believe that all human life is sacred. The use of lethal force is perfectly justified when people's lives are in imminent danger. The moment the threat is neutralized, the use of lethal force is no longer justified.
    A woman was before the Court for sentencing in a murder trial, the judge asker her why she shot her husband 15 times, she replied he kept moving.

  4. #4
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    BarryKirk wrote:
    You may even save the shooters life. If your eating your gun, the success rate for a fatal shot is really high. Whereas, if somebody else takes down the shooter, there is a good possibility of the shooter surviving.



    You are kidding, right?

    Best one of the day...






  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    BarryKirk,

    They will also occur in "armed" zones, so in addition to"suicide by cop" we will have "suicide by armed citizen."

    Shootings can happen ANYWHERE, it's just that presentlythey are usually at gun-free-zones.

    So expect it to happen and just oblige the shooter(s)as soon as possible.

    -- John D.


    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    Kelly J wrote:
    BarryKirk wrote:
    Gee, I guess we haven't figured out that shootings occur at victim disarmement zones.

    And as usual, the shooter committed suicide.

    So how do you stop somebody who is intent on committing suicide from taking others with him? How about denying him easy targets.

    You may even save the shooters life. If your eating your gun, the success rate for a fatal shot is really high. Whereas, if somebody else takes down the shooter, there is a good possibility of the shooter surviving.

    Of course, I believe that all human life is sacred. The use of lethal force is perfectly justified when people's lives are in imminent danger. The moment the threat is neutralized, the use of lethal force is no longer justified.
    A woman was before the Court for sentencing in a murder trial, the judge asker her why she shot her husband 15 times, she replied he kept moving.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    By God, Texas, ,
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    BarryKirk wrote:
    You may even save the shooters life. If your eating your gun, the success rate for a fatal shot is really high. Whereas, if somebody else takes down the shooter, there is a good possibility of the shooter surviving.


    You are kidding, right?

    Best one of the day...
    Hey, what's the rationale/justification of the antis?

    "If it saves just one life," right?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    shooter_tx wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    BarryKirk wrote:
    You may even save the shooters life. If your eating your gun, the success rate for a fatal shot is really high. Whereas, if somebody else takes down the shooter, there is a good possibility of the shooter surviving.


    You are kidding, right?

    Best one of the day...
    Hey, what's the rationale/justification of the antis?

    "If it saves just one life," right?
    That reminds me a little of my assertion that the use of guns in crimes is much more humane than the other option of a killer using a knife or blunt object to kill someone... Hell, whenever I'm forced to go to New York, I bear in mind that I'd rather be shot in the head with a .45 and die instantly than get stabbed 85 times with a dull knife and then whacked with a piece of wood until I bleed to death.

  9. #9
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    shooter_tx wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    BarryKirk wrote:
    You may even save the shooters life. If your eating your gun, the success rate for a fatal shot is really high. Whereas, if somebody else takes down the shooter, there is a good possibility of the shooter surviving.


    You are kidding, right?

    Best one of the day...
    Hey, what's the rationale/justification of the antis?

    "If it saves just one life," right?
    That reminds me a little of my assertion that the use of guns in crimes is much more humane than the other option of a killer using a knife or blunt object to kill someone... Hell, whenever I'm forced to go to New York, I bear in mind that I'd rather be shot in the head with a .45 and die instantly than get stabbed 85 times with a dull knife and then whacked with a piece of wood until I bleed to death.
    And what would you prefer in places other than New York? Just curious.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    And what would you prefer in places other than New York? Just curious.
    To be able to defend myself.

  11. #11
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    BarryKirk wrote:
    You may even save the shooters life. If your eating your gun, the success rate for a fatal shot is really high. Whereas, if somebody else takes down the shooter, there is a good possibility of the shooter surviving.



    You are kidding, right?

    Best one of the day...




    Actually, I wasn't kidding. I consider human life to be sacred.

    Now, while the shooter is still a lethal threat, lethal force is justified to stop him. Therefore, any law abiding adult should be allowed to carry in schools.

    Since life is sacred, it should be the duty of every citizen to protect their fellow citizens and in the case of a school shooting, those citizen's should have the obligation and means to engage and neutrilize the threat.

    Once the threat is neutrilized, saving the shooters life is a positive goal for many reasons.

    The survivors of the shooting including families and members of the community have been severly traumatized. With the shooter dead, a lot of loose ends have been left. Some people need a public trial to help them find closure. But with the shooter dead, those survivors have been denied a trial.

    I'm not under the illusion that the shooter can be re-integrated back into society at some later date and I'm not necessarily against the death penalty in these cases. When people have been so badly hurt by the shooter, some of them need to find closure in a court of law.

    Please let me know if I've read the situation wrong.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •