“Good Guy” With Gun Commits Murder In Florida Theater

Slight flaw here... Being a police officer doesn't make you an automatic "good guy." It's our actions that define us, not our titles.

 

Whereas the defenders of gun rights appear to want their rights extended to being able to shoot anyone and anything that spooks them, upsets them or irritates them.

 

yeah good call, i didnt read the whole thing

 

But like all the shootists he was a good guy, defending the right of CCW, right up until he shot somebody, then instantly his status was revoked.

 

I suppose people would have presumed him "good" up until this very poor and "evil" choice he made, anyway. We all know there's a certain risk of a gun being abused...

 

What an ignorant statement. You believe is democracy instead of a republic. True democracies always fail into totalitarianism.

 

If a person does not have the emotional maturity to carry a firearm...they shouldn't. While I don't know the full story, as each story has two sides and somewhere in the middle is the truth...it's clear to me this gentleman lost his temper after getting popcorn tossed at him...and elected to use deadly force.

Yes, he's 71, but he exhibited the emotional maturity of a pre-teen. The problem is, it's difficult to ascertain a person's emotional status and the ability to wield a firearm when appropriate and when to decide a cooler head should prevail. Clearly, on the surface, deadly force was not necessary...unless we decide as a collective society that texting inappropriately in a movie theater is worthy of retaliation on the level of deadly force.

The fact he is a former police officer has no real bearing on the story, as it unfolded in that particular moment...this person's emotions got the better of him and resulted in the tragic escalation of a situation that could easily have been avoided by simply getting a refund and walking away. Hindsight is 20/20 I suppose.

 

im pretty sure you have to pass a mental health exam to be a cop so i dont think one of those would have prevented this guy from snapping, or anyone else for that matter.

 

Much of what I posted is FACT. Nothing to agree or disagree with. CCW permit holders commit murder in Florida (where 1 in 6 adults had one) at a rate 1/5,000th that of the general public. You can't disagree with that, it's a fact. Violent crime, nationwide, is at an all time low. Murder, nationwide, is at an all time low. These, too, are facts. You can't "disagree" with a fact.

One of my best friends on the planet is alive and his (sadly, now ex-) wife is unraped because when a gang of people who had been invading homes, raping and killing people kicked down HIS door, he was armed. The bad guys turned around and skedaddled, and he didn't even need to fire a shot. I'd say my friend, whom I love like a brother, being alive today is a DEFINITE benefit.

There aren't "thousands" of accidental shootings per year. That's complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

One saved my friends life. Recently, in Oregon, an armed citizen shot a guy who was shooting up a strip club, ending his rampage. Nobody died, including, sadly, the shooter, but had that armed citizen not intervened, it might have made headlines as the latest mass shooting event. Does the media report that a good guy with a gun STOPPED a mass murder? Hell, no! But had the shooter managed to kill 8 or 10 (or more) people, it would be the only thing in the news right now.

You're wrong. I celebrate every bad guy who gets wiped off the planet. And the "trigger happy" and "accidental" are much more rare than you are implying. As for suicide, after Australia banned firearms, their suicide by firearm rate did, in fact, decrease. But the overall suicide rate did NOT. People just used different methods.

Clearly, you are arguing from emotion, and not data, because you haven't got the first f-ing clue what you're talking about.

Opinions are like (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s. Everyone has one, and most of them stink. Your's most certainly does.

 

here is a video of a gang armed with machetes chased away from a family by one gunman
[video=youtube;GFVATtlbYWg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFVATtlbYWg[/video]

 

You're missing the WHOLE point. The biggest issue with this entire case is how utterly SHOCKING this is. Here's a guy, who has been alive for 71 years, and spend most of his adult life carrying a firearm and dealing with belligerent (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bags, and never once did he feel the need to shoot someone. And after 71 years of proving himself to, in fact, be a good guy, who is safe to be around even if you're a belligerent (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag and he's armed, SOMETHING goes horribly wrong, and he ends up shooting someone over a bag of popcorn being thrown.

The reason this is a "story" is because that behavior is so completely out of line with the behavior he's demonstrated for the previous 71 years of his existence on the planet. My pure, rank speculation is that he's suffering from some kind of dementia, but that is just RANK speculation on my part.

 

And how does a license prevent the from getting a gun If they are already legally prohibited from owning a firearm?

 

And you have a valid constitutional solution. Don't own a firearm. You do not however, have the right to infringe on my right to own one.

This is simply false. Thousands of cases prove otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Who wants that? Can you quote anyone here saying any such thing? Can you quote any gun rights advocate who has ever said any such thing?

 

Leftwingers an anti-gun nuts put too much faith in the ability of the police to protect them (and fire straight): "...Two officers opened fire, discharging a total of three bullets. They missed the man, but struck two women nearby, including one who had been leaning against her walker; the bullet wound to her leg sent her tumbling to the ground. Other officers rushed toward the suspect; a sergeant used a Taser on the man, and he was quickly subdued. " (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/n...re-police-wound-two-bystanders.html?hpw&_r=1& )

 

Well, you STILL haven't managed to do that. You are painting a distorted picture of things, if you ask me; a form of propaganda of your own making.

I didn't say that they would. Yet, you are making some grand, baseless (even stupid) assumption that the "media" is particularly anti-gun.

And you don't think pro-gun messages are communicated via the "media"? Please.

Narrow-minded nonsense.

 

You are just ranting distorted, extremist foolishness.

Of course, this is a Republic... and I've stated that directly, more than a few times on this website.

 

Amen to that!!

 

Right!! This is one of those times where common experience and good sense says as much or even more than any "law" ever could.

 

Great points. Your view above reflects that of many Americans. If nothing else, this discussion/debate is well-fueled to go on for quite some time. And that is GOOD... because it will very likely lead to change in the future.

Thank God!!

 

hey look its a liberal thanking god

 

So what?
Do you really believe that all liberal are atheists?

Isn't the POPE being accused by crazies like Palin and Limbaugh to be "too liberal?

Your comment demonstrates how much you know. . .about so much!

 

Maybe you need to look at these statistics, and then tell me that this is acceptable to you.

 

You are correct to laugh at someone who makes that assumption.

Anyone who assumes that I am NOT a Christian and man of deep faith, would be wrong.

 

Thank-you this is EXACTLY the sort of advertisement that I associate with American gun culture where there has been a concerted effort by the armaments industry to engender fear in the public so they can sell more guns