US: 90-year-old woman, her 82-year-old brother shot at bus stop

[lvr181]

taking away the guns from law abiding citizens is not the answer.

To even suggest that as a solution shows great ignorance.

Lol yeah, funny one !

Long live the Second Amendment, irregardless of how much blood is spilt!

If only the 2nd amendment allowed ordinary folk the right to carry miniature nuclear warheads around with them, everything would be perfect !

You don't realize that most of the "illegal" shootings in the United States are committed by criminals that are "not legally allowed" to possess firearms?

You should understand that it is not the lawful abiding citizens that are doing all the shootings!

The Second Amendment was not written for the purpose of arming "criminals" and that is discussed by those that participated in the signing of the document that contains the Second Amendment.

Interesting.

Point 1: So the "shooters" were criminals beforehand? Each and everyone?

Point 2: Maybe so, but some gun carrying lawful abiding citizens claim that by carrying guns they can protect themselves. Against what?

Those gun carrying lawful abiding citizens are not stopping criminals/terrorists! Therefore, why do they need to carry guns?

Point 3: I was not there so I cannot make any assumptions.

Edited February 26, 2016 by lvr181

[bannork]

More guns are needed.

If there was a rack at every bus stop with loaded assault rifles in it, the elderly people could have returned fire and stopped these losers dead in their tracks.

There should be loaded military grade weapons at every lamp post, USA would be safe then !

A hilarious post- phone Trump and tell him to include it in his manifesto- a rack of fully loaded automatics at every bus stop and lamp post. 5555

[radiochaser]

You don't realize that most of the "illegal" shootings in the United States are committed by criminals that are "not legally allowed" to possess firearms?

You should understand that it is not the lawful abiding citizens that are doing all the shootings!

The Second Amendment was not written for the purpose of arming "criminals" and that is discussed by those that participated in the signing of the document that contains the Second Amendment.

Interesting.

Point 1: So the "shooters" were criminals beforehand? Each and everyone?

Point 2: Maybe so, but some gun carrying lawful abiding citizens claim that by carrying guns they can protect themselves. Against what?

Those gun carrying lawful abiding citizens are not stopping criminals/terrorists! Therefore, why do they need to carry guns?

Point 3: I was not there so I cannot make any assumptions.

Point 1: Yes,> most< of the shootings in the United States are done by criminals, that is, people who have been convicted of crimes, and who have yet to be convicted of crime.

People who, when committing an "illegal shooting" are in the process of committing some other crime, (robbery, theft etc) or where the actual "illegal shooting" is the crime, (drive by shooting, attempting unjustified homicide).

Point 2: Well, me, in California, 5 times, 2 times in Nevada against people that either threatened me with bodily harm, or were intent on stealing my personal belongings or my vehicle. Never shot anyone though!

And there thousands, if not tens of thousands of times a year, that someone protects themselves or others from criminals attempting to cause bodily harm, or theft. The media here in the United States will not, or will try to not report self defense with a firearm.

There is one anti-gun group, that will not accept a claim of self defense, by a person with a legally possessed firearm, unless that person kills the criminal!

So, by that criteria, I did not protect myself from being harmed or killed by a person that threatened to kill me. A person who kicked in the door to my house, only to face a pistol pointed at him. I did not shoot and injure him, I did not shoot and kill him, he turned and left the house. So, I did not defend myself according to some!

Point 3: But you were not there, yet you did make assumptions. See your point 2!

California is rampant with criminals that attack people out away from the cities. I am guessing but, I think that 90% of people in California live in the cities. When I lived there, cell phone use, was almost non existent. Go out away from the cities, sheriffs were distant and may take hours to find one to report a crime.

Having been a Federal Agent, I helped police departments and other Federal Agents in several states, here in the United States. They shared information and experiences of people that did protect themselves from harm or death and did so with legally owned firearms.

[sunnyjim5]

Land of the Free where gun control is rejected and people are killed en mass on an almost daily basis !

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35666108

[lvr181]

Interesting.

Point 1: So the "shooters" were criminals beforehand? Each and everyone?

Point 2: Maybe so, but some gun carrying lawful abiding citizens claim that by carrying guns they can protect themselves. Against what?

Those gun carrying lawful abiding citizens are not stopping criminals/terrorists! Therefore, why do they need to carry guns?

Point 3: I was not there so I cannot make any assumptions.

Point 1: Yes,> most< of the shootings in the United States are done by criminals, that is, people who have been convicted of crimes, and who have yet to be convicted of crime.

People who, when committing an "illegal shooting" are in the process of committing some other crime, (robbery, theft etc) or where the actual "illegal shooting" is the crime, (drive by shooting, attempting unjustified homicide).

Point 2: Well, me, in California, 5 times, 2 times in Nevada against people that either threatened me with bodily harm, or were intent on stealing my personal belongings or my vehicle. Never shot anyone though!

And there thousands, if not tens of thousands of times a year, that someone protects themselves or others from criminals attempting to cause bodily harm, or theft. The media here in the United States will not, or will try to not report self defense with a firearm.

There is one anti-gun group, that will not accept a claim of self defense, by a person with a legally possessed firearm, unless that person kills the criminal!

So, by that criteria, I did not protect myself from being harmed or killed by a person that threatened to kill me. A person who kicked in the door to my house, only to face a pistol pointed at him. I did not shoot and injure him, I did not shoot and kill him, he turned and left the house. So, I did not defend myself according to some!

Point 3: But you were not there, yet you did make assumptions. See your point 2!

California is rampant with criminals that attack people out away from the cities. I am guessing but, I think that 90% of people in California live in the cities. When I lived there, cell phone use, was almost non existent. Go out away from the cities, sheriffs were distant and may take hours to find one to report a crime.

Having been a Federal Agent, I helped police departments and other Federal Agents in several states, here in the United States. They shared information and experiences of people that did protect themselves from harm or death and did so with legally owned firearms.

Reference to your Point 3: Do you understand question marks?

And I am happy that you did not shoot your intruder, but the fact remains there seems to be too many "idiots" around with guns (legally licensed or obtained or not) that go on killing sprees! And while you may have stopped a criminal how many terrorist activities have been stopped/terminated by armed persons other than law enforcement people?

You have the benefit of being trained in law enforcement, perhaps the majority of gun owners do not. How many more of your country's children will be killed before an effort is made to find a better way of gun ownership and control?

AGAIN, that is not an assumption - it is a QUESTION!

In my western country very few children (if any) are killed by guns.

Killed by their own incapability to drive, yes. But I would think that is not uncommon to any country that has a high ownership of motor vehicles. AND all the time, efforts are being made to cut down on those road deaths (in my mind, not very successful - but that is another story). I was always taught that a licence (to drive) was a privilege but most now seem to expect it as a right.

Is there a correlation between "rights" and death?

Have a nice day.

[manarak]

probably a gang war with the neighboring nursing home

[Assurancetourix]

America Is the Only Country That Went from Barbarism to Decadence Without Civilization In Between

Thailand is still in Barbarism , not yet in Decadence

[lvr181]

America Is the Only Country That Went from Barbarism to Decadence Without Civilization In Between

Thailand is still in Barbarism , not yet in Decadence

Damn, after 600 years there does not appear to be any short term improvement toward civilisation then?

[GeorgesAbitbol]

I forgot to mention...

the midwest states and those on the border,

and the communist state of California,

are even more diligent and resolute,

about selling one a firearm, be it handgun or rifle or ammo.

and the communist state of California,

Dude you really are an old chap'...

I m not sure if I should laugh or pity you

Edited February 29, 2016 by GeorgesAbitbol