So then maybe those people shouldn't have guns then. I think if you can't take care of a kid, or be responsible for a child, you sure as fucking fuck can't be responsible enough to take care of a gun. It's an interesting tactic that gun supporters tend to exhibit. No where in my comments here or in the other thread, have I said anything remotely close to 'outlaw guns entirely'. Stop saying it, and stop acting like everyone who thinks we should actually have some limitation on gun accessibility (and as i've said, better mental health support) are only arguing one point. AND quit acting like that one point they're arguing is complete gun removal. again, not even close to what I suggested. true, but did the guy in Clackamas use a .22? or the guy in Connecticut use a .22? If people won't be responsible for their guns, they need to maybe not have guns. And maybe, just maybe, everyone having guns isn't actually such a good idea, nor is having as huge of a variety of guns available. Oh wait, that's kind of my point.
So it's speculation that Nate is just continuing. Not sure that proves your point, or his point any better.
You guys are going around in circles. Good thing I'm here to clear this up. The missing piece of information, which witnesses can provide, is: How long was the time between when the gunman saw our self-claimed hero, and the time of the suicide? The longer it was, the less probable that Hero was the proximate cause of Gunman's suicide. Was it 10 seconds or the opposite extreme, say, 3 minutes?
weird thing is, walking away from the scene, he still had the option and ability to kill others along the way and didn't. Including running into someone in the back corridor where he killed himself. Pointed the gun at the person, but didn't shoot. I don't think this guy really wanted to kill as many people as possible. I know that probably sounds stupid.
that is a good point. I think this guy might be trying to be a hero, more so than actually being a hero. If he was an off duty cop, retired cop or something along those lines, I'd be more inclined to believe him. one of my good friends has a CWP (or whatever its called) and I wouldn't trust him to make the wisest decision in that scenario. And he's been hunting for all of our lives (well, for over 30 years now). Why wouldn't I trust him to make that decision? Because he's never had to do it before, and isn't trained on how to shoot people.
What are you even talking about? You said that guns should not have been available in the first place. I'm merely asking how you would make that happen? Did I say that you mentioned all those things? No. I'm merely asking how you would go about making them unavailable, either by outlawing them, removing them, etc etc etc. People are irresponsible. They run up huge credit card debt, they drive drunk, they let their kids ski without helmets, and they leave their guns out where others can get to them. That part of our society isn't going to change. How would you go about changing or even enforcing it? The best avenue right now is trying to address mental illness. It's the cause of these attacks and it's the only true way to prevent them in the future. Trying to regulate guns, or weapons at all, is a fools errand and will not stop something like this from happening.
please, re-read what i wrote and get back to me. You are making an argument against something I didn't say.
If "the hero" saw that the guy's weapon was jammed why didn't he run up to him, tackle him and take the weapon away? Why would he let him just walk away and possibly shoot more innocent people? How did he know that just staring at the guy with his gun pointed at him was enough to stop the killings?
Why are you changing what I said to fit your point? Here is an EXACT quote of what I said. The emphasis is on if HE didn't have have the gun. That is not saying anything about the guns themselves not being accessible. So stop making my point to fit your narrow view of what the argument is about.
this would have made a much better story, and might possibly stop some of these assholes. they dont want to get caught, they want to off themselves fuck run up and shoot the bitch in the legs
Why would the guy lie about not shooting? What's wrong with you? The guy is a security guard and wants to be in law enforcement.
I posted it during the live thread, too. Somebody I know on Facebook was near the guy who had the killer in his sights and posted about it.
I'm not sure that the guys who do these things have the same cognitive level of thought process that you and I do. To you and me, the idea of someone shooting us would probably stop us from doing a LOT of things (not that we'd ever think about doing them). To them, they don't think that way. In some ways, their illness prohibits them from having the social awareness of wrong or right. They don't necessarily think that someone might shoot them or that being stopped/shot is as high of a deterrent as it should be. It might cause them to run or go somewhere else, but it's unlikely they thought it through enough to consider just offing themselves in the first place.
end of the day this guy is telling his story, its fair for anyone to believe or not i see no reason to suspect he is lying personally, especially since his friend was right there and could blow the lid off his whole shizzle
