Here we go again

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

You are kidding, right?

Best one of the day...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

You are kidding, right?

Best one of the day...

Click to expand...

Hey, what's the rationale/justification of the antis?

"If it saves just one life," right?

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.

Click to expand...

You are kidding, right?

Best one of the day...

Click to expand...

Hey, what's the rationale/justification of the antis?

"If it saves just one life," right?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

You are kidding, right?

Best one of the day...

Click to expand...

Hey, what's the rationale/justification of the antis?

"If it saves just one life," right?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

And what would you prefer in places other than New York? Just curious.

imported post

HankT wrote:

And what would you prefer in places other than New York? Just curious.

Click to expand...

To be able to defend myself.

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.

Click to expand...

You are kidding, right?

Best one of the day...

Click to expand...

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.