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.