Didn’t think I was being childish. Not attacking the person, just respectfully disagreeing. We still allow that here, right?
My point is, how do you determine who the “good guy” is? When the GOP shoots down (no pun intended) every attempt to put some reasonable restrictions and controls (assault rifle ban, background checks, mental health checks, etc), then we are all in the dark about who is able to be a “good guy” (aka responsible gun owner) until we receive proof (via incidents like this) that they are not.
Maybe we can be a bit more proactive, and make our best effort to weed out those who should not be able to own a gun? It won’t be perfect, but it can at least reduce many of these types of events.
p.s. And reminder, the Left didn’t construct the “good guy with a gun” metaphor, the NRA did. If some disagree with that choice of words, take your grievance to Wayne LaPierre.
We’ve shown amazing resilience as a species every time we use this kind of thinking to address something that is drastically shortening our life expectancy as a group.
Is there a term that encapsulates “when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail”? That’s the US and guns (and most of the “problems” are imaginary). Also, I’m not sure where what you describe turns into paranoia…
Hell, everyone’s a “responsible gun owner” until they aren’t, too. In both cases, the presumption is that people are, until they do something egregious that proves they never were.
Probably. We’ll see if he’s just a one note chump or not. It looks like he just stepped on a landmine with “responsible gun owner”. But this part is reasonable enough.
In most places, you can cash and carry a handgun or a high-capacity assault weapon right out the door, with as much ammo as you can afford and carry, to then go shoot up some people that pissed you off. No waiting time. Nada. And that’s absolute horseshit.
We need better, more robust gun laws whether the gun porn fetishists like it or not.
The law of the land specifically states that you CANNOT use deadly force to protect property.
gets me…Not to be too pedantic, but the law of the land says no such thing. It says you MAY end up paying consequences if you use deadly force to protect property, but there’s really nothing the “law” can do to prevent you from doing it in the first place.
They might make it more difficult for you, you know, by preventing ownership of tools designed specifically and solely to kill, but they don’t do that. So, you can actually do whatever you want, you just might (maybe) suffer consequences.
