Replies

There was a post a few days ago where a guy in Britain killed himself with a crossbow. If they took the guns from this guy, he could have used an axe, a baseball bat, car or whatever.

Yes, there is that angle too. He could have used a hammer, a knife, bathtub drownings, or just beat them to death.

Maybe, in the current anti-gun climate, I'm just a little surprised that this happened. Without trampling gun rights here, let's remove the murder aspect of this crime for a brief moment. There appears to be some negligence (perhaps too strong of a word) on the part of the police or maybe the law in particular.

If a person is deemed a threat to himself enough so that the law sees it necessary to pull his gun permit, doesn't it make sense (from a law enforcement perspective) to remove the guns also? I know that if a person is intent on killing, he/she will find some other way around any roadblocks that are thrown in front of him/her. But they pulled his gun permit for a reason. They pulled his permit because they thought he was a threat to use his guns. If they thought he was a threat to jump in his car and drive it off a cliff would they feel the threat was alleviated because they pulled his license?

The bottom line is that he can't shoot himself, or anyone else for that matter, with a permit. Don't get me wrong on this, I'm pro 2nd Amendment but pull his permit? C'mon. Now, I'm no attorney, but if I was, I'd be all over this like stink on $hit.