the gun advocates are all about having citizens armed to the teeth yet whenever one of these mass shootings occurs..they are mysteriously absent to 'save the day'
Makes me think in fact theres way too many guns out there and in the hands of kids..what a disgrace this place has become.
2007-12-09 10:44:08 · 10 answers · asked by █ORal-K 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Where was I? In another state. I also don't carry weapons nor do I want that responsibility. It should be down to law enforcement.
Just because you carry a gun..who gives you the right to end another persons life when you dont know the facts..who's the bad guy?
No one at the mall came to the defence of the citizens, no armed hero from the gun lobby would have been brave enough.
And what was the 'kid' using..a russian military grade AK47..my god..this is beyond handguns is'nt it..whats next rocket launchers?
It has to END. NOW.
STOP IT.
2007-12-09 11:08:10 · update #1
I think you mean Omaha.
As to your point. People that have a permit to carry a concealed weapon are also trained not to blindly shoot in every situation. Even allowing such a person was in the mall when it happened most of us would not have opened fire in a mall filled with women and children unless we could guarantee a clean kill shot.
Try to think instead of reacting blindly. You should take a class in gun safety to get over this fear of yours.
2007-12-09 10:56:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you had done a little research, it would not be hard to find a good answer. Since you didn't do it, I will do it for you.
The most logical answer is that Nebraska just began issuing concealed weapons permits in 2006, and considering the timeframe for actually getting that permit is 90 days after taking the class, not to mention setting up the classes and certifying teachers...etc, it's not hard to understand why there may not be alot of Nebraska citzens who have their permits yet.
Believe me, law abiding gun owners prevent or stop things like this alot more often than you'd imagine.
2007-12-09 15:10:14 · answer #2 · answered by Crazyjester9 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It was a GUN FREE ZONE, that means you can't have a legal gun there. That's what every gun-owner is mad about. If guns were allowed there, then the news might have been different. Or more likely, you would have never heard of the story.
2007-12-09 16:35:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
"nor do I want that responsibility. It should be down to law enforcement."
Your choice - BUT : if you rely on the cops...WHERE WERE THEY ? Those whose job it is to Serve and Protect did neither.
Is the mall posted as a ''Gun-Free Zone'' ? That would tell you where the legal weapon are, or aren't.
2007-12-09 13:05:00 · answer #4 · answered by sirbobby98121 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
if you want a gun for nothing just go to the mall, they dont like guns in the centre so all the lone rangers put them in the glove box.
2007-12-09 11:39:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
yeh good point. there wouldn't be so much need for self defense if it wasn't so easy for the shooters to get guns. not to mention the rates of suicides that involve guns.
2007-12-09 10:55:15 · answer #6 · answered by opi 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
so you are against armed citizens but complain if they don't happen to be there at a given time. Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.
2007-12-09 10:55:17 · answer #7 · answered by Paladin 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Probably campaigning for the right to bare arms.
2007-12-09 10:49:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yeah, where were you when the shooting happened? Makes what you said sound dumb huh?
2007-12-09 10:50:23 · answer #9 · answered by Arcanum Noctis 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
true
2007-12-09 10:51:47 · answer #10 · answered by glamour04111 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋