PDinDetroit said:
...whereas reasonable people will recognize the need for providing for their own self-defense and do so.
How often have you known someone who is anti-gun to change their mind (short of being attacked or stalked herself), or even to be reasonable about the subject?
To take into account the facts as proven by research, or even statistics provided by the FBI? I can see them discounting some of the foremost research, but how can they get around denying stats compiled by the gov't?
No, if it weren't so clear the guy is half loopy to begin with, I'd almost suspect this was a stunt done by a rabid anti-gunner all hoping to stir up anti-gun sentiment (kind of like the rabid anti-abortionist who hated killing so much he murdered an OB/GYN).
And I don't mean loopy as in out of touch with reality, didn't know what he was doing, should spend the rest of his life in a locked psych ward. If he were out of touch with reality, he'd've attacked whoever he saw first.
I mean loopy as in not playing well with others, not acknowledging the rules the rest of us agree to live together under. (Such as, you don't shoot someone you disagree with.) Psychopath. I think he knew exactly what he was doing. He left notes, he planned this, he took a cab, he targeted Gabby. He's also not said a word to police. So he's not nuts enough to go off on a rant; he's together enough to remember his right to remain silent.
Which brings me to another beef - the Sherriff who tells media the guy "isn't cooperating". BS. He's cooperating to the fullest extent required by law. Which is to say, he requested a lawyer & shut up. The Sherriff either doesn't know the law (doubtful, for someone running the agency) or doesn't like it (possible).
