BuffettNews.com

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:My training tells me if I unholster a weapon, I had better be prepared to kill someone. No such thing really as shooting to wound.....

I understand. But I'm trained to hide behind the 400 lb fat person in the mall when I hear shots. Unless he falls backwards.

moog wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:My training tells me if I unholster a weapon, I had better be prepared to kill someone. No such thing really as shooting to wound.....

I understand. But I'm trained to hide behind the 400 lb fat person in the mall when I hear shots. Unless he falls backwards.

That 400 pound fat person sure gets around.
He's usually sitting (or, rather, fully reclined) in the seat just ahead of mine of every G.D. airline flight I'm ever on.

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

moog wrote:Boy, the military could use guys like this.

No, the military doesn't need or want unbalanced men and women.

Phew. I'm out.

Either way, people can argue about gun control all they want. Just because a few find the weapons, doesn't mean the entire (hopefully decent, responsible) population should be denied access to them. And I hope we won't have to hear about security check points and armed guards, because I think that's overreacting.

creeky wrote:Now this guy wanted to die famous - maybe the answer could be to concentrate on the victims and NEVER publicise who the shooter was ... might stop a few crazy people and save some lives - never know.

It's twisted but people want to know why these tragedies happen, so the news media feeds the curiosity by analyzing the background of the responsible parties. The thought is that if they cut that part out, less people would watch the news and their revenues from commercials would fall off.

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

creeky wrote:simple - tighter gun control .....

He obtained the weapon illegally. More gun control laws would not have prevented this tragedy. One legally armed individual in the vicinity might have been able to lessen it.

damn right!!!