California bus shooting highlights need for popular concealed carry--more guns among legal citizens, not fewer
People need to be able to defend themselves against armed lunatics--not bow down or cower in confronting irrationality.
This gunman was able to get off at least several rounds, killing/injuring several people. Had there been someone on the bus, experienced in firearms and possessing a handgun at the ready, this individual could/should have been stopped after the first round was fired.
In a society which is only partially free to own weapons (under highly restrictive conditions that apply only to those who obey the law), the answer is more freedom and less weapon-control for citizens, keeping dangerous thugs/crazies off the streets (or executing them after their first non-restitutable crime).
The people who died or were injured in this attack are victims of a flawed policy that tends to exonerate vicious criminals (and leave them in a position to access weapons) while denying or impeding the right of citizens to own weapons for their own defense and be in a position to form citizens' militias to oppose the rise of tyrants.
Did those victims vote for those who enacted that flawed policy of restrictive weapon ownership among citizens? If they did, they had their deaths/injuries justifiably coming to them. That's karma folks.
This gunman was able to get off at least several rounds, killing/injuring several people. Had there been someone on the bus, experienced in firearms and possessing a handgun at the ready, this individual could/should have been stopped after the first round was fired.
In a society which is only partially free to own weapons (under highly restrictive conditions that apply only to those who obey the law), the answer is more freedom and less weapon-control for citizens, keeping dangerous thugs/crazies off the streets (or executing them after their first non-restitutable crime).
The people who died or were injured in this attack are victims of a flawed policy that tends to exonerate vicious criminals (and leave them in a position to access weapons) while denying or impeding the right of citizens to own weapons for their own defense and be in a position to form citizens' militias to oppose the rise of tyrants.
Did those victims vote for those who enacted that flawed policy of restrictive weapon ownership among citizens? If they did, they had their deaths/injuries justifiably coming to them. That's karma folks.
Still trying to find it.
Here in Montana, we have had some incidents on/near interstate busses but nothing anywhere near this magnitude of crazy.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-can...
If that hero hadn't acted promptly, who knows how many people in that church would have been slain or severely injured?
The shooter appears to be mentally ill. He also has a history of violence.
liberties) being disallowed from legally purchasing weapons--provided that doesn't lead to extensive state surveillance of citizens.
I think keeping a record of arrests and having that record available to weapons dealers is okay. Beyond that, surveillance becomes an infringement of the 2nd Amendment--our principal defense against tyranny.
Also, the "mental state" of offenders shouldn't be a ticket to exoneration or living above the law. If a person can't restiltute for the crime he/she perpetrated, regardless of "mental state," the answer is death.
If a person is in the act of threatening or taking human life in a non-defensive situation, that violence initiator should immediately be shot by any person carrying a firearm in the vicinity. Being mentally unstable is no excuse for initiating violence.