Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Opinions on Oregon shootings
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="druryj" data-source="post: 2798930" data-attributes="member: 10465"><p>Relied via the link with a focus on the ridiculousness of "gun free zones" as applied to law abiding citizens exercising their right to be armed for the purpose of self defense in order to help prevent future incidents like this. My reply: </p><p></p><p>"In response to Mr. Mullin’s recent piece on the shootings at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, I also applaud the heroism of Army Veteran Chris Mintz. If only he or someone else there had been legally armed, then they might have been able to stop the gunman short of his objective. A point that seems to have been ignored is that this incident, as in most other such incidents, took place in a Gun Free Zone. Shooters like the gunman in Oregon choose locations exactly like this to carry out their plan because they know that the chance of facing armed resistance is extremely low in a “gun free zone”. Do we really want to deter and possibly limit the number of such incidents and help stop the needless deaths of innocent people? Then do away with the ridiculous notion that a "No Guns Allowed" sign won't stop a gunman; it will only serve to let them know that they have chosen an easy target. My prayers are sent for the victims and their families, but shame on those “leaders” who put those poor people in the face of danger and facing death by not allowing them the right to protect themselves. I hope they lie awake at night, knowing they had a supporting role in this tragedy".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="druryj, post: 2798930, member: 10465"] Relied via the link with a focus on the ridiculousness of "gun free zones" as applied to law abiding citizens exercising their right to be armed for the purpose of self defense in order to help prevent future incidents like this. My reply: "In response to Mr. Mullin’s recent piece on the shootings at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, I also applaud the heroism of Army Veteran Chris Mintz. If only he or someone else there had been legally armed, then they might have been able to stop the gunman short of his objective. A point that seems to have been ignored is that this incident, as in most other such incidents, took place in a Gun Free Zone. Shooters like the gunman in Oregon choose locations exactly like this to carry out their plan because they know that the chance of facing armed resistance is extremely low in a “gun free zone”. Do we really want to deter and possibly limit the number of such incidents and help stop the needless deaths of innocent people? Then do away with the ridiculous notion that a "No Guns Allowed" sign won't stop a gunman; it will only serve to let them know that they have chosen an easy target. My prayers are sent for the victims and their families, but shame on those “leaders” who put those poor people in the face of danger and facing death by not allowing them the right to protect themselves. I hope they lie awake at night, knowing they had a supporting role in this tragedy". [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Opinions on Oregon shootings
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom