A career criminal is back on the streets, so who is really at fault?
I say the politically correct, pathetic lawmakers in this country who side with criminals and let them back on the street are at fault, not the weapon!
The upside is the chinese woman whose business was attacked by two robbers, and she showed them the end of her pistol causing them to flee..
You mean limited access to firearms.
I suspect that there is a policy that employees are not allowed to have firearms on the premises. Had Mr Haskett had a carry weapon, he might not have been shot at all.
Say what? I doubt the McDonald's employee had access to any firearms, I believe company policy forbids it for employees at work.
One of the downsides to unlimited access to firearms.
Also it’s more evidence of our being A nation of cowards when it comes to race.
But the man who shot him wasn’t deterred by any number of existing laws. Keeping others, who DO obey the law from owning or carrying a firearm would not have prevented this. If restrictive firearm ownership laws were the answer then the problem would be solved. What law could we pass that would have kept this from happening?
There was no unlimited access to firearms here.Nigel Haskett did not have one when he needed it.
Best regards,
If that’s not sarcasm, you’re an idiot.
What a frickin' dumb ass statement. If there was "unlimited" access to firearms the McDonalds clerk would have been armed and defended himself before he would be shot, or the perp wouldn't have even tried to shoot him. Most likely the firearm used was illegally owned and even if it was, was most likely not legally carried. Criminals own and carry firearms in contradiction to the law which proves those laws useless.
Go back to DU or put up a SAR sign next time. It is hard to believe a FReeper could be so frickin' stupid.
One of the dumbest statements I’ve ever read here, and that’s saying something!