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


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


"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" ?

I know. It's just too bad for the dead ones, they were just
collateral damage.


**** happens
That's life.
No different from the 42,000+ innocents killed on roads annually.
where both drivers and vehicles are licensed
Man that licensing sure works great...
Not only it doesn't stop licensing people from going around and
killing themselves and others. It doesn't even stop people who never
had a license or had it withdrawn from participating in the killings.
So naturally, stricter licensing should solve the problem according to
such as you

And you tell me to take a class in logic ?
I would need to take a class in stupidity to operate at that
level.

You're only right in 1 point. Regulations don't work if you don't
enforce them. One of the right's favorites was Giuliani. Rudi started
(more or less) enforcing rules and regulations and his police drove down
crime. Now Bloomie is floating on the results, but forgets the starategy
and crime is rising again. I know it's a generalization and ignores many
other factors. Just yesterday there was a horrific accident in town.
Drunk missed a curve on the highway and wrapped around a tree, killing
his passenger. He's in the hospital with severe injuries charged with
vehicular manslaughter. Who exactly needds to enforce drunken driving
rules, I don't know. I don't know whether a bar or just "friends" were
involved. Will come out later.

The same with gun rules and immigration, just to name a few areas. Rules
only work if they are enforced.



Totally IRRELEVANT to the issue of being INDIVIDUALLY able to defend
yourself if the need arises
Unless you have a cop in your back pocket, you are running around
unprotected most if not all of the time.
You are obviously of the school that presumes that
1) the police will get to you in time
2) the police will help you when you need them
You are wrong on both counts
1) Delay between you calling for help could be minutes to infinity
Which means, YOU are ON YOUR OWN UNTIL they arrive
2) Note also that the police have NO DUTY to come to your aid
IF they decide that the cat in a tree is more important than your
call for help, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN
There are quite a few cases from local, all the way to the US
Supreme Court, that specifically state that the police HAVE NO DUTY to come
to your aid, except in very specific cases

So your argument about enforcing the rules is a lot of hooey, that will
neither protect you, come to your aid when you need it, and demonstrates
ignorant optimism at best.
And let's not forget that it's VERY possible that current laws like the
Sullivan Act, or Federal laws in government buildings are unconstitutional
and therefore won't be around much longer to support that argument anyway.

What will be your argument then ?