Posted on 06/19/2015 9:59:34 AM PDT by libstripper
An NRA official blames the massacre at a South Carolina church on the slain pastor's anti-gun position.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
“The striking thing about this, and not the other “gun free” zone atrocities, is that a significant “gun free” zone advocate was murdered by a subhuman because of the very lethal policy he ardently advocated and enthusiastically implemented at his own church.”
Definitely gets points for poetic justice. Usually the people who decide that your right to self defense isn’t important are protected at all times by armed guards.
I found that strange also. Why did everyone not scatter? Why didn’t someone try to jump the guy while he reloaded? Even if he blocked the door - there were windows I’d guess. And that young man who tried to protect his aunt by standing in front of her ... well it may have helped more if he rushed the shooter.
I mean, I know everyone was like a deer in the headlights, but the perp reloaded FIVE times. RUN !!!
The pastor has no blame. The full blame goes to the bastard who killed people.
That is one way to look at it. However, the business has a greater duty to provide a safe environment and take steps to avoid foreseeable dangers created by their policies. Every mass shooting has taken place in a place that bans guns. Several perps are on record as explicitly picking a place guns were banned to do their crime. By banning guns they vastly increase the danger to patrons and employees.
The customer or employee does not have the same responsibility as the business to know the risks of entering the establishment. For example, amusement parks budget for a certain number of injury wrongful death payouts every season. The patrons don’t have as great a responsibility to know the extent of the possibility of injury or death as the park,
Its like God.
Try to convince the atheist that God exists.
Try to convince God Knowing Individual that anything exists without Him.
The only reason the Dems care about guns is beause down the road they can confiscate and get control of all. Buy Ammo, buy often.
Another germane point to be made about Breivik is that in addition to the shootings he also set off a car bomb that killed 9 and wounded 200. Even in a fantasy land where firearms are gone murderers will still be able to murder in mass if they are determined.
As a matter of fact I would think a car bomb would be harder to stop than an active shooter which is why the terrorists like them so much.
Right, in reference to Norway, In Svalbard they are required to have firearms because they live near Polar Bears and other wild animals. But they have the need to protect themselves.
Amazing that all of Europe and so many other countires, Australia(which surprises me) all prohibited firearms use.
My post is based entirely on the legal principle related to mitigating risk to a plaintiff, not on the practical application of defendants making payments under civil lawsuits. What I have described here is called the "doctrine of avoidable consequences" in tort law. Yes, the owner of the establishment might be liable for damages. But if the plaintiff in a case related to a shooting like this already knows what he's getting into, any damages might be reduced -- or even eliminated entirely -- in a civil trial.
oppps save Switzerland, do they require all citizens to own firearm, right?
Its friday.
I put this NRS official’s statement in the same category with Rutherford, the black that blamed Fox News — ridiculous. The only person to blame for this is the shooter.
There you go. You can’t legislate sanity.
I have to add that any gun free zone is a place the sane shouldn’t want to occupy, presently.
Yes, this means the church building. Church shootings are legion. Parishners and congregants are well armed and dangerous to the insane, wherever the right to carry is respected. No sitting ducks makes an unlikely target for a massacre.
Iagree. However, states can change the law and should.
The killer simply stopped firing. He wanted survivors, two I believe, to tell the story and relay his motivations.
Because there is some confusion here, I looked up the relevant statute, which is SC Code Section 23-31-215(m)(8), the current version of which provides:
(M) A permit issued pursuant to this section does not authorize the permit holder to carry a concealable weapon into a:
(8) church or other established religious sanctuary unless express permission is given by the appropriate church official or governing body[.]
Thus, pastor Pinckney could have given CC permission, but didn't, probably because of his strong opposition to CC. That disarmed him and his flock and made then sitting ducks for the atrocity.
The bold face is my emphasis, not the statute’s.
In my state a place of business can post a no weapons on the premises and it has the force of law.
I carry.
If I can't carry I don't go.
When I go to the bank I use the drive through.
Churches are legal carry unless they post a sign. When that happens I guess I won't go to church.
Stupidity happens. Guns are a great thing to have on site, it protects all.
No....this is the time for the NRA to STFU.
Save the rebuttals for much later.
“Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead. Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue,” Cotton wrote on TexasCHLforum.com.
Assuming the article is accurately reporting what the man wrote, there is indeed an official of the NRA who is stupid enough to blame the dead Pastor for the fact that a drugged-out racist nutjob came into his church and committed mass murder
...or banning the use of seat belts in automobiles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.