"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

So you are claiming that this vet killed the doctor because he was
allowed to have a firearm ??
Exactly HOW was that doctor killed ??

At the time, possession of the firearm may have been illegal or not. I
don't know whther that vet had a license. However, disabled as he was, he
managed to enter the hospital in his wheelchair with the gun because there
was NO weapons screening at the time as there is now. He proceeded to
find
the doctor and just shot him. As if it were an ambush of sorts.

I think that answers all your questions.


So you admit that the rule to ban guns that was already in place did NOT
work to protect the doctor or prevent the attack

Interesting that you promote a rule that has been shown not to work
So CLEARLY, your position is not a rational one based on what works. It's
instead based on the wishful thought that MAYBE it works and thus it should
be kept.



If arming personnel were the answer, the only result would have been more
deaths in this case.


Classic cliché line that is UNSUPPORTED by DATA
That type of "Blood in the Streets", "Shootouts like the OK Corral" have
been trotted out in EVERY SINGLE State that considered relaxing it's carry
laws, by the hoplophobe gun controllers
It's IRONIC that it has NEVER BEEN SHOWN to come true
In actual fact the OPPOSITE has occurred

By the way, you do know that law-abiding armed citizens shoot more than
twice as many criminals as police do, and yet al those well-trained police
shoot almost 6 times as many innocent bystanders as those "untrained"
law-abiding citizens..
Your confidence is placed in the hands of the wrong people

And your arguments are based on individual incidents instead of the whole
picture.
Can you say "statistical fallacies" ?