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 ...
When I hear this, I think it isn’t from a perspective on the political aspect guns or positions on gun availability or how anyone feels about them. They, guns, will always be available to those who go to the trouble to get them. If guns aren’t available then other substitutes can be had.
It isn’t politics, it isn’t religion, it isn’t race or ethnicity. It is nothing but crazy, demented insanity. That is what it is.
I’m all for private property rights. The owners should be free to ban guns of they wish. But they should also be held strictly liable for incidents like this.
L
Yes, but it’s not at all hard to find a more horrific example of the carnage caused by “gun free” zones. Virginia Tech, Cinemark in Aurora, Sandy Hook, Columbine... practically all multiple shooting in the US happen in “gun free” zones. How many people would have had a gun in any of these places is debatable, but the point is they were actively discouraged. Basically the government, the church, the movie theater, says to you “don’t take responsibility for for your own defense, trust us and we will protect you” and then they make no effort whatsoever to actually protect you.
bttt
(My guess is that logical incoherence is a result of lobbying by clergy. But even if the Reverend encouraged it in his church, state law prohibits it.)
From response #20 at FReepppost *here*:
Something is not adding up.
He [the reported shooter] had a .45, with at least seven rounds in the magazine, and reloaded five times, totaling 35 shots, at a probable minimum. There were a total of nine killed, and assuming he finished off half those he might have wounded with a follow-up *certainty shot*, that still would have required only around 15 rounds. Assume that after everyone stopped moving, he shot each of the bodies again to be absolutely sure; that's still only 24-25 rounds total.
What did he do with the other 10 or more rounds available to him, and why did he not continue his killings elsewhere in the church? Was he after one or more specific targets, a person or persons in that particular room with him?
Something is not adding up, and we are not being told what it is.
In other words, we are talking about the demonic here.
SPOT ON!
Banning guns in a public accommodation or a place of business should be prima fascia evidence of a tort. If anyone is harmed by a violent act in a place that bans guns the only question in court should be how much to pay the injured.
Banning guns is the moral equivalent of chaining a fire exit closed.
uhhh....no
I don’t believe that ANY official of the NRA 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.
“Banning guns is the moral equivalent of chaining a fire exit closed.”
I’m stealing that. Thanks.
L
Yep, this guy and almost every notorious Gun Free Zone Killer of the last twenty years is/was bug nuts crazy. Any ideology they seem to have been drawn to is superfluous to that fact.
In other news, the NRA blames the Charleston church Pastor for the......KA-BooooooMMMMMM....
Use it at will.
In Norway, firearm ownership is prohibited unless one can exhibit specific legal requirements for possession.
Norway has a population of 5.1mm.
Anders Breivik murdered 77 people.
The US has a population of 321mm.
The scum in Charleston, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and Aurora, CO collectively murdered 80 people.
To equal Breivik's level of violence proportionally, they would have to have had 4,822 victims.
Not 80.
The USA is demonstrably safer with our current laws than Norway is with its.
There were a couple threads yesterday with the “your actions demand justice, but I hope you find Christ” comments of one of the survivors. Who was shot eight times.
Demons bide their time and are ready willing and able to take over whenever the opportunity presents itself. They don’t care about political persuasion; they care about weakness of spirit.
I don’t know if you’re correct about the tort implications here. If a place of public accommodation is openly declared to be a “gun-free zone,” the any liability on the part of the person or persons responsible for that policy would be heavily offset by the failure of any aggrieved parties to reduce their own risk. In other words, a person who conducts business in such an establishment knows full well what the risks are, and shouldn’t complain when something like this happens.
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.