Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kutulu
If you think those are in any way compareble situations it's your observation skills that need work.
|
well, everything is subjective and best interpreted by those who have to deal with it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kutulu
How nice for him to change his ammunition after someone could have gotten hurt because he played Rambo.
Good for him that nobody else got hurt and that lady wasn't pissed. I would have freaked out on that guy for escalating the situation like that.
|
How would you have felt if he HADN'T done anything and all 4 of them ended up dead? He saved their lives when they could have all ended up dead. dead is permanent, not shooting COULD have been a mistake he would have only been able to make once.
I also wanted to add, it's been said by many gun owners/carriers that I know that you shouldn't pull it if you don't intend to shoot, why shouldn't we maintain that standard when it concerns bad guys? should we just sit on our thumbs and think 'if i'm real still, maybe he'll just go away'?
I'm curious, in your two shootings of random injuries that you cited, was it ever determined that the gunfire came from a law abiding citizen licensed to carry? or from people that weren't carrying legally anyway and were in the process of committing crimes?
edit: found my answers. In the county of Los Angeles, with a population of over 8.5 million, only 400 private citizens have a license to carry a handgun. So the odds are pretty damn high that she wasn't hit by a licensed owner anyway. I see that the second one is in wisconsin. Since Concealed carry there isn't legal anyway, only open carry is (and in any major city is going to get you arrested for disturbing the peace regardless), odds are that that shot came from a criminal as well. So what relevance do those two shootings have when it concerns licensed and trained citizens obeying the law?