Originally Posted by Q
So, what you're saying is that, worn-out cliches of dumb rednecks who've seen one too many action films aside (because, you know, it's common knowledge that everyone
with a CCW is a dumb redneck who's seen one too many action films
), the scenario where no one takes action against an armed assailant in a crowded area, and thereby guaranteeing
that he will inflict the maximum number of casualties before the police magically teleport in is somehow preferable to someone who carries a pistol and knows how to use it shooting the crazy ****er because he might
accidentally hit an innocent person?
No I am not...I will write what I am mean; you do not have to wrongly add to it.
Besides I have a CCW. If you have ever had training then you should know what I am saying is the same thing that any instructor would teach you. It is also the same thing that police and soldiers are taught.
Read again what I wrote, I did not WRITE NO ONE SHOULD TAKE ACTIONÖ.
Never mind typical non-reading and people adding their own definition to words. This place is a cesspool when it comes to debate, I write something clear as day
Originally Posted by mimartin
So no, I don't want the person, that would leave a gun out so a small child could get hold of it, to open up on a crazy in a crowed place.
What is so hard to understand there? If someone is so irresponsible and has such disregard for the safety of a child, I would not want them running in to shot the target. They are just as likely to shoot the responsible gun owner that was about to take out the crazy.
Iím done, if you guys are not going to actually discuss and read, I donít see the point.