4 Innocents shot dead. I thought you couldn't carry guns in NY!

[Titan]

My subject line is facetious and sarcastic and it's pointed at the incredibly stupid laws of NY which govern the carrying of handguns for protection. Their laws sure didn't keep this maggot from carrying his gun!

The story linked here is about the cold blooded murder of the 4 innocent people in a pharmacy in NY.
Be sure to also watch the short video and look at the statistics on murders over the years.

This whole thing also brings to mind someone on the forum here that asked awhile back why anyone feels the need to carry a gun. My question would be more like why would anyone NOT carry a gun for self preservation?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/19/four-shot-dead-at-long-island-pharmacy/?test=latestnews

There's no way to know if this horrible and senseless slaughter would have been prevented if somebody in there had been carrying. But my bet is that there would have at least been some possibility.

Every time I ride the Valk (now it's related), and at all other times, I make sure that I'm prepared to defend myself and others if the need arises. I wish everybody else did too!

[fudgie]

Well it should not have been in 'that' area of town.  Sure is sad.  That is why I have no desire to visit NY. They dont care about my safety so none of my $$ will go there. Plus its a helmet State aint it? A double whammy. 

Honestly, alot of people dont carry for the way they are recieved by the public.

[MP]

Every person who says they have no need to carry, because they only go in safe places, need to read this article.

They should also cancel their house insurance, because almost nobodys house burns down. Yet, for some strange reason, almost everyone has fire insurance!

Very few cops fire their gun in the line of duty.  So, the reasoning goes, should cops NOT carry?

I have never wrecked a car, yet wear my seatbelt.  I have not wrecked a MC, yet wear a helmet and gear.  Why?

MP

[The Anvil]

Four people are dead. Who gives a f**k about the politics? People who want to carry will carry, people who don't won't. Let it go.

[KW]

This is sad, horrible and tragic and I can’t even begin to imagine what the parents and families of these victims are going through, but are you serious? How can politics NOT be a part of this discussion? If you’re on the left, you believe the reason this guy shot these innocent folks is because he had an ‘evil’ gun and you would ban as many as you can. If you’re on the right, you don’t believe the ‘tool’ he used had much to do with the crime . .  and in fact, a gun in the hands of the right person would have stopped this horrifying ‘heartbreak’ from occurring.

Yeah. .  it’s easy to tell where I fall in this. Until someone steps up and tells me they’ve read over 10,000 criminal case files on all types of crimes like I have, they bring nothing to any “debate” I’ll engage in. You want a direct correlation that’s easily substantiated? Drugs first, pornography second (nearly all crimes, not just CSC) are the common threads virtually all violent criminal animals share. That’s the facts. Guns may be more sensational, but an 80 year old Librarian being beaten to death by a baseball bat is just as gruesome. It just doesn’t make the news. 

[Gryphon Rider]

Hey Fudgie,
Do you see the irony in your message? 

Well it should not have been in 'that' area of town.  Sure is sad.  That is why I have no desire to visit NY. They dont care about my safety so none of my $$ will go there. Plus its a helmet State aint it? A double whammy. 

Honestly, alot of people dont carry for the way they are recieved by the public.

[Gryphon Rider]

You want a direct correlation that’s easily substantiated? Drugs first, pornography second (nearly all crimes, not just CSC) are the common threads virtually all violent criminal animals share. That’s the facts.

I suspect the absence of a father who parents his kids with love, fairness, and firmness; and loves and respects their mother plays a huge factor, but I haven't seen statistics recently enough to quote them.

[old2soon]

Bad things happen to good people. Wrong place at the right time. Right place at the wrong time. Do not however get me wrong. When they get the worthless scumbag trash piece of sheet fry his worthless a$$ asap. Will this bring back the victims?? We all know that answer. We were not there. Would some one with a fire arm have changed these events as they unfolded?? Sadly we will NEVER know. Is c c a good idea?? I M H O yes. That being said-would i feel any better being accidently shot and killed by someone trying to protect me?? Let me relate what a salty old bosuns mate told me a long time ago-a 1000 pound bomb or a garrot or a pistol-dead is dead. Look at the school shootings in the last 20 25 years. The work place shootings. The post office shootings. Can you guarrantee me that when someone goes off c c is gonna keep me alive?? I might stand a little better chance-but than again i might not. Some one-don't know who said give em all the guns they want. Make bullets hard to come by. Just like a cattle stampede-if it's gonna get ya there ain't a whole lot you can really do to prevent it. If some body wants to really kill some body else in all likelyhood some one will die. Each and every situation is different. Most every body will never know if they will react correctly to the situation. Be alert. Pay attention. Be aware of where your at. Preventable?? Who REALLY knows?? BE SAFE RIDE SAFE.

[bscrive]

Maybe it is because I am Canadian but I don't see how more guns would have made the situation any better.  I gunfight will have ensued and possible other innocents would have been killed or wounded by stray bullets.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there like this guy and if you let the fear get to you and you think you cannot go anywhere without a gun then you are no longer able to enjoy life.  Stuff happens and these poor people were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Master Blaster]

Maybe it is because I am Canadian but I don't see how more guns would have made the situation any better.  I gunfight will have ensued and possible other innocents would have been killed or wounded by stray bullets.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there like this guy and if you let the fear get to you and you think you cannot go anywhere without a gun then you are no longer able to enjoy life.  Stuff happens and these poor people were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Drinking the coolade are we????

[sugerbear]

Maybe it is because I am Canadian but I don't see how more guns would have made the situation any better.  I gunfight will have ensued and possible other innocents would have been killed or wounded by stray bullets.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there like this guy and if you let the fear get to you and you think you cannot go anywhere without a gun then you are no longer able to enjoy life.  Stuff happens and these poor people were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

would you rather have a 1% chance of survival or 0%?
if you came home to find a pervert had your daughter on the floor, would you try to stop him?
would you use your fist, or a gun(IF you had one)?

how would you defend yourself in any life threatening situation?
hopefully you'll never be in that situation, but.................

i can carry, and enjoy life, at the same time. it's just like carrying a tool kit on your bike.
hopefully you'll never need it, but it's there if you do.

[MP]

Maybe it is because I am Canadian but I don't see how more guns would have made the situation any better.  I gunfight will have ensued and possible other innocents would have been killed or wounded by stray bullets.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there like this guy and if you let the fear get to you and you think you cannot go anywhere without a gun then you are no longer able to enjoy life.  Stuff happens and these poor people were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This would also apply to a LEo being there with a gun.

To kill 4 people in a store takes at least a few seconds.  The first one is out of luck, no time.  However, after that, if one of the remaining three could return fire, it may well have saved the others.  100%?  N0.

But, I would rather have some chance, than 0 chance.

I guess you would just rather commit suicide, than try to defend yourself.  If that is your wish, please go ahead.  I would rather try to defend myself, my family, and other innocents.  You would not.  Your choice, but I think it is cowardly.

"if you let the fear get to you and you think you cannot go anywhere without a gun then you are no longer able to enjoy life"
Wouldn't his apply to MC helmets?  If you cannot ride a MC without a helmet without being afraid, you should no longer ride, as you cannot enjoy it?

MP

[Oss]

the original electric chair  old sparky is in my town of ossining which was also called SING SING
as in SING SING PRISON

Where the expression up the river comes from

I knew an old fellow who was a guard on death row and saw many executions

It always rattled him (eyeballs flying across the room, skin on fire and such) but he still believed in the deterrent of the chair

Now we have no chair and it is damn near impossible to get a permit in NYC

Sometimes I wish I lived in an open carry state  If I did I would carry

but would not freak out if I could not bring it someplace on vacation

[RoadKill]

If they had outlawed pharmacys in NY,these people would still be alive !

Maybe we should just make it against the law to get shot ! That will stop the violence

And where the hell were the cops? they obviously are responsible for these deaths because they did not enforce the "No Gun" law. Burn the pigs!

[fudgie]

Hey Fudgie,
Do you see the irony in your message? 

Well it should not have been in 'that' area of town.  Sure is sad.  That is why I have no desire to visit NY. They dont care about my safety so none of my $$ will go there. Plus its a helmet State aint it? A double whammy. 

Honestly, alot of people dont carry for the way they are recieved by the public.

lol yea I do.  But we rather die on the bike doing something we both enjoy then get shot at.  Plus our forfathers thought this was important enough to be the 2A for every US citizen.

[fudgie]

If they had outlawed pharmacys in NY,these people would still be alive !

Maybe we should just make it against the law to get shot ! That will stop the violence

And where the hell were the cops? they obviously are responsible for these deaths because they did not enforce the "No Gun" law. Burn the pigs!

If you outlaw pharmacies then only outlaws will have pharmacies. 

Your posts crack me up. 

[fudgie]

Maybe it is because I am Canadian but I don't see how more guns would have made the situation any better.  I gunfight will have ensued and possible other innocents would have been killed or wounded by stray bullets. 

You would be able to defend yourself instead of standing there sh!tting your pants cause you are next. Sure others could have been hit in the gunfight. But it dont really matter since they wond up dead anyway.  At leasy you tried to defend yourself/ others.

[bscrive]

No one knows how they are going to react in a situation like that until you are in it.  Saying you would do this or do that means nothing really.  If it was a choice between me and some buthead determined to kill me, well it is going to be him, if I can help it.  Even trained professionals may not be able to react in time and if they do it is not always a controlled shooting, sometimes it is just an unloading of a few shots and that is when innocents get killed. 
We have pretty strict gun control up here in Canada but the criminals can always get guns (we do live beside the biggest gun store in the world).  We also enjoy one of the lowest crime rates in the world.  I think the crime rate per capita is about 1/3 that of the US...is gun control the reason...who knows.  But if you look at countries with the lowest crime rate they are generally countries with strict gun control.  Also, what would I do if someone broke into my home and raped my wife, well, the guy would be dead....period.  Do I need a gun to do it...No.

[bscrive]

You would be able to defend yourself instead of standing there sh!tting your pants cause you are next. Sure others could have been hit in the gunfight. But it dont really matter since they wond up dead anyway.   At leasy you tried to defend yourself/ others

That is a cowboy attitude with a lack of understanding of your actions.  It does matter, more guns there may have added to the dead and wounded.  I don't say this to be an ass or to piss you off.  But you have to think about the consequences your actions will have to others and especially to yourself.  Talk to a vet and ask them if there actions don't haunt them.

And as for helmets.  I don't know if you have ever been in a motorcycle accident, I have.  I would never think of riding without a helmet.  Even a small mishap, where you would normally walk away, can leave you with a catastrophic brain damage or dead.  It is everyone's choice but, just because you can does not mean you should.  It does not make you cool, free or whatever you think it does.  I would not be here today if I didn't have my helmet on that day.  A guy just pulled out of a parking lot and didn't look.  Hit me and my sister.  She went under the car and broke both her legs and I went over the handle bars and I remember my helmet smacking the pavement.  You don't forget something like that.

[BigAl]

You forgot rock and roll Gryphon

Sex , drugs and rock and roll.

Mommy did not love me, so I go out and kill.

Daddy did not love mummy, so I can't turn out good.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility.

Do the crime, you do the time.

One gun with one trained individual, this guy would not be a repeat offender.

SImple as that.

DOn't depend on your government to protect you.

Protect yourself and then let the government bury your result and praise and laud you performance as a responsible citizen.

Bleeding hearts are what empower these idiots to act.

AL

[fudgie]

And as for helmets.  I don't know if you have ever been in a motorcycle accident, I have.  I would never think of riding without a helmet.  Even a small mishap, where you would normally walk away, can leave you with a catastrophic brain damage or dead.  It is everyone's choice but, just because you can does not mean you should.  It does not make you cool, free or whatever you think it does.  I would not be here today if I didn't have my helmet on that day.  A guy just pulled out of a parking lot and didn't look.  Hit me and my sister.  She went under the car and broke both her legs and I went over the handle bars and I remember my helmet smacking the pavement.  You don't forget something like that.

Understandable. I work EMS and see folks die every month. Folks died with helmets on or off. Seat belt on or off. Seen folks die and the way they did it will have you saying how in the hell? Doesnt matter cause if its your time to go, you will go. The ol lady and I would rather go out doing what we love together at a young age then to sit in a nursing home waiting to die. Better to be known for how we lived then how we died.

Hope you both recovered to your full potential.

[Titan]

You would be able to defend yourself instead of standing there sh!tting your pants cause you are next. Sure others could have been hit in the gunfight. But it dont really matter since they wond up dead anyway.   At leasy you tried to defend yourself/ others

That is a cowboy attitude with a lack of understanding of your actions.  It does matter, more guns there may have added to the dead and wounded.  I don't say this to be an ass or to piss you off.  But you have to think about the consequences your actions will have to others and especially to yourself.  Talk to a vet and ask them if there actions don't haunt them.

Did you even read the news story we're discussing here? Why do you keep throwing around the notion that "if there were more guns there, then there might have been more people killed"?

There were 5 people there. Total 5 people. One maggot with a gun and 4 innocent people. The scumbag shot all the 4 others dead. So, how would more people have been hurt or killed if one of those others had had a gun and possibly could have defended themselves?

How about you look around and find a story from anywhere in the country and show me where there has been a mass shooting in which somebody in the crowd of victims had a gun and accidentally hurt or killed any other innocent bystander while battling for his/her life. Convince me that if even one victim of any mass shooting had been armed that it would have been even worse than it was because of that extra gun.

This pacifist crap about people who legally carry getting into a big gun battle and hurting innocent people is the most ridiculous argument I can imagine. The world, unfortunately, is full of people who think like you do about guns. That's why we have incredibly stupid laws which prevent citizens from being able to defend themselves. That leaves all the bad guys knowing that they can stroll right into any place they want and execute everybody in sight.

You would be one of the first ones under the table crying about nobody being there to help save you and your family.

[RoadKill]

You would be able to defend yourself instead of standing there sh!tting your pants cause you are next. Sure others could have been hit in the gunfight. But it dont really matter since they wond up dead anyway.   At leasy you tried to defend yourself/ others

That is a cowboy attitude with a lack of understanding of your actions.  It does matter, more guns there may have added to the dead and wounded.  I don't say this to be an ass or to piss you off.  But you have to think about the consequences your actions will have to others and especially to yourself.  Talk to a vet and ask them if there actions don't haunt them.

Did you even read the news story we're discussing here? Why do you keep throwing around the notion that "if there were more guns there, then there might have been more people killed"?

There were 5 people there. Total 5 people. One maggot with a gun and 4 innocent people. The scumbag shot all the 4 others dead. So, how would more people have been hurt or killed if one of those others had had a gun and possibly could have defended themselves?

How about you look around and find a story from anywhere in the country and show me where there has been a mass shooting in which somebody in the crowd of victims had a gun and accidentally hurt or killed any other innocent bystander while battling for his/her life. Convince me that if even one victim of any mass shooting had been armed that it would have been even worse than it was because of that extra gun.

This pacifist crap about people who legally carry getting into a big gun battle and hurting innocent people is the most ridiculous argument I can imagine. The world, unfortunately, is full of people who think like you do about guns. That's why we have incredibly stupid laws which prevent citizens from being able to defend themselves. That leaves all the bad guys knowing that they can stroll right into any place they want and execute everybody in sight.

You would be one of the first ones under the table crying about nobody being there to help save you and your family.

You are having a battle of wits with an unarmed person,I resort to sarcasm rather than retreat....but I am afraid your logic is wasted here 

[Titan]

  You're right, RoadKill. I should have known better and gone on to bed.

Going now.

[Walküre]

What bothers me most, was people like Zamudio, at the Gabby Gifford's shooting. He was ready to draw and fire on  the person who had disarmed the shooter, and the guy evidently was VERY lucky he didn't get popped by Zamudio. Trust me, if I had taken the shooter's gun away, and ANOTHER person with a gun, told me to drop it, they would get shot. Period. If I'm standing in a crowd of people, one of which I had just taken his gun, and another person with a gun, told me to drop it, the ONLY person at that moment, that I trust with a gun, is ME!!! Unless it is an easily-identifiable LEO, I would have no idea if they were with the shooter, or after the shooter. Here's the tale in context:

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

    I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.

When Zamudio was asked what kind of weapons training he'd had, he answered: "My father raised me around guns … so I'm really comfortable with them. But I've never been in the military or had any professional training. I just reacted."

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting. I hope Arizona does train lawmakers and their aides in the proper use of firearms. I hope they remember this training if they bring guns to constituent meetings. But mostly, I hope they don't bring them.

Again, WHO do I trust?? Me. Me alone.

I'm not against carry, and have a Lifetime Indiana carry license. I carry VERY seldom. But there are occasions. And, flame suit on, I worry more about the people carrying them, that are "law abiding 2nd ammendment enthusiasts", than ANY criminal. Anyone who sees criminals around every corner, and carries a gun, scares the hell out of me...

And of course, that's MY opinion, and MY choice.

R

[3fan4life]

What bothers me most, was people like Zamudio, at the Gabby Gifford's shooting. He was ready to draw and fire on  the person who had disarmed the shooter,

That story is obviously very biased.

What it doesn't say is that in that same situation an off/on duty LEO would've done the same thing or worse.

Imagine the situation, LEO hears shots, comes out of the store and sees a man holding a gun.

He's going to assume that man is the shooter (and logically so), with the way that LEO's are trained these days the guy would've only had miliseconds to comply with the order to drop the gun before getting shot.

The problem here would be that the poor guy that had just disarmed the REAL shooter most likely would need more time than that to process the situation.

[MP]

What bothers me most, was people like Zamudio, at the Gabby Gifford's shooting. He was ready to draw and fire on  the person who had disarmed the shooter,

That story is obviously very biased.

What it doesn't say is that in that same situation an off/on duty LEO would've done the same thing or worse.

Imagine the situation, LEO hears shots, comes out of the store and sees a man holding a gun.

He's going to assume that man is the shooter (and logically so), with the way that LEO's are trained these days the guy would've only had miliseconds to comply with the order to drop the gun before getting shot.

The problem here would be that the poor guy that had just disarmed the REAL shooter most likely would need more time than that to process the situation.

Police actually have a higher incidence of shooting the wrong person, because they NEVER know who the bad guy is at a scene.  While those there do.


ALL the people in the store were killed, except the perp.  I guess that is who our Canadian friend is referring to about someone else getting shot.

I bet if you could go and talk to the 4 killed, and ask them if they would like to be able to at least try to defend themselves with a gun, I would bet ALL my money they would!

MP

[bscrive]

Sorry guys,

I don't mean to upset anybody or put down your views.  I just see things a different way. 

Roadkill, when I say others could have gotten hurt or killed is this.  Someone is walking down the street and a bullet goes out the door or through a wall, it ricochets whatever.  You can say that it is far fetched but many things happen in the real world that are far fetched like going to the pharmacy to get a prescription and getting killed.  We don't see that up here.

Just my opinion

[Gryphon Rider]

You forgot rock and roll Gryphon
Sex , drugs and rock and roll.
Mommy did not love me, so I go out and kill.
Daddy did not love mummy, so I can't turn out good.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility.
Do the crime, you do the time.
One gun with one trained individual, this guy would not be a repeat offender.
SImple as that.
DOn't depend on your government to protect you.
Protect yourself and then let the government bury your result and praise and laud you performance as a responsible citizen.
Bleeding hearts are what empower these idiots to act.

AL

Al, KW was talking about things that criminals tend to have in common, and so was I.  It seems you tried to read between the lines of my comment and found only what your preconceptions put there.  To put it in other words, I'm simply saying that I believe (until shown reliable contrary statistics) that criminals are more likely than non-criminals to not have a father who is a good role model living with them as they grew up.  This is not to say that upstanding citizens can't come from terrible family situations.  If society only treats the symptoms without looking at the root causes, the symptoms will multiply.

[Gryphon Rider]

Sorry guys,

I don't mean to upset anybody or put down your views.  I just see things a different way. 

Roadkill, when I say others could have gotten hurt or killed is this.  Someone is walking down the street and a bullet goes out the door or through a wall, it ricochets whatever.  You can say that it is far fetched but many things happen in the real world that are far fetched like going to the pharmacy to get a prescription and getting killed.  We don't see that up here.

Just my opinion

Montreal police kill homeless man, innocent bystander:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1004422--montreal-police-kill-homeless-man-innocent-bystander

Four innocent people shot in Vancouver:
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/10/31/15898626.html

Young mother an innocent shooting victim, say cops (Winnipeg):
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2010/10/12/15669836.html

Bystander among 3 killed in Calgary restaurant shooting:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2009/01/05/cgy-new-year-slayings.html

Innocent bystander shot dead outside Toronto bar:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2008/10/25/to-bystander-killed.html

bscrive,
Where is "up here"?

[bscrive]

Just east of you in Ottawa.  I guess I should have added 'much'.  With the 5 instances you mention in the last 3 years, we still don't see that 'much' up here.

[RoadKill]

Out of 5 examples , 11 persons shot and only ONE innocent victim was from shot fired in self defense. Should the Police not have guns either ? I thought there was no gun crime in Canada because it's against the law?

[fudgie]

Out of 5 examples , 11 persons shot and only ONE innocent victim was from shot fired in self defense. Should the Police not have guns either ? I thought there was no gun crime in Canada because it's against the law?

    

[RoadKill]

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/S7pGt_O1uM8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Titan]

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/S7pGt_O1uM8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That's awesome! I've met people who would actually sign up for that!
 

[SANDMAN5]

Ten out of ten criminals surveyed prefer unarmed victims.

[Willow]

I just never understood the "bystanders accidentally shot by good guys" concern.  I was having a discussion with my pastor concerning a recent (at that time) mass shooting at a Dallas house of worship.  I commented how fortunate it was that someone carrying a weapon was there to stop the slaughter.  His response was that he was concerned with how many people might have been killed or injured by gunfire aimed at the killer.

I just don't understand how in a situation in which one person is intentionally killing victims with a firearm anyone with a functional logic base could be more concerned about people being accidentally killed or injured by attempts to stop the slaughter.   

We had to agree to disagree.       

[RoadKill]

I just never understood the "bystanders accidentally shot by good guys" concern.  I was having a discussion with my pastor concerning a recent (at that time) mass shooting at a Dallas house of worship.  I commented how fortunate it was that someone carrying a weapon was there to stop the slaughter.  His response was that he was concerned with how many people might have been killed or injured by gunfire aimed at the killer.

I just don't understand how in a situation in which one person is intentionally killing victims with a firearm anyone with a functional logic base could be more concerned about people being accidentally killed or injured by attempts to stop the slaughter.  

We had to agree to disagree.        

Apparently cold blooded murder is WAY more acceptable than an accidental shooting.  

One has a harder time claiming insanity and being punished (rewarded) with a stay in the hospital when it is an accident.
  

[fudgie]

I just never understood the "bystanders accidentally shot by good guys" concern.  I was having a discussion with my pastor concerning a recent (at that time) mass shooting at a Dallas house of worship.  I commented how fortunate it was that someone carrying a weapon was there to stop the slaughter.  His response was that he was concerned with how many people might have been killed or injured by gunfire aimed at the killer.

I just don't understand how in a situation in which one person is intentionally killing victims with a firearm anyone with a functional logic base could be more concerned about people being accidentally killed or injured by attempts to stop the slaughter.   

We had to agree to disagree.       

 

[bscrive]

As well as the pastor I will have to agree to disagree.  It is hard to see things from another point of view when you are so used to a certain point of view.