While it may have been purchased legally, it was used in a "gun free zone", therefore it was used illegally.

People who are psychotic take a certain kind of drug. People who are asthmatics don't fly off the handle if they miss their medication.
Therefore, people who are prescribed psycho medication should not be allowed to buy guns.

That's what training in the use of firearms prevents. The guy was standing on a stage, pretty hard to miss.

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.

I was in Chi yesterday, for the first time in several months. I often go back towards a CB shop south of Rockford on I-39, so I know where the school is.

It's a tragedy that something like this would happen anywhere. There isn't much you can do about it, if he wouldn't have had access to guns, there are other, far more lethal ways to commit mass murder. Always be aware of what's going on around you, you never know when someone else may be going to kill.

There are others on the critical list, so the death toll may go higher, two more plus the gunman were added to the list after the first reports went on the air.

My thoughts and prayers to all of the victims of this tragedy.

It has been shown that many of the guns used in the shootings have been purchased legally. Whether one considers a gun free zone or whatever is not relevant. The use of the weapon is the crime regardless of such zones.

There is no proof that a person who takes psychotic drugs will quote "fly off the handle". Alot of the shooters have not been the users of such drugs. This is just plain profiling. Although many have had issues.

There is proof that police officers who have been extremely well trained in the use of firearms, lose control in violent situations. I do not think any of the so called trained users would even have close to their level of training.

If you want to remain a sitting duck, that is your prerogative.

I don't agree.

Here is the false belief that the law will protect you. The Law is not in place to protect anyone or anything. It is just a means to put people behind bars. In the court room you normally only here about the accused rights. What about the victims rights? They were violated, so why should we give to sh*ts about the accused?

In any situation where a crime is happening the only thing that is pro-active is the person committing the crime and the person or object that the crime is being committed against. Everything else is re-active. Police are 99% of the time re-active to a crime, only showing up after the fact. The only person who can protect you during the commission of a crime is yourself.

I will take the 5 armed, and as stated untrained, as apposed to no one armed. Why, simple for every one shell he is shooting there are 5 coming back at him. Odds are now on my side that he will be taken out before he takes someone else out.

Here is a good question, why are the mass killing today done at malls and schools? Because the shoot knows that his chances of not completing his mission are low, very low.

Why do you not see shootings at Gun shows? Police Stations? Gun ranges? Any place were guns are allowed? Because these @sshat know that they don't have as big of a chance as there will be people shooting back.

I will admit that shootings do happen where guns are allowed, but most of these are gang related and normally not directed towards the public in general even though they are usually caught in the crossfire.

The best way to end this BS is to allow guns everywhere.
And NO! Banning guns will not stop the shooting. This only arms the criminals and disarms the law abiding citizen, the ones present during the commission of a crime..

__________________
Regards
Robert

Smile... it increases your face value!
Linux User #296285

Where did this come from?

Killings are done at those locations due to the number of people or potential targets is my guess.

It may or may not be the best way to end the supposed BS you refer to. However, see my post. I am only talking about the licensing issues. If guns are available, you COULD possibly see more shootings.

No where did I suggest banning guns.

And the easy of doing it. Most people do not carry so the chance that you are going to get return fire is small

I beg to differ on this. There are more guns on the streets, where a cary permit is allowed, then you really know. There are reasons why people get carry permits and it's not just to have them.

That is the next step after banning carry permits.

This is the goal of the brady bunch and thier followers. The false sense of security believing that if guns are banned people will be safer. The truth is far from that, it will only raise the crime rate as then everyone who is a law abidding citizen will be left defenseless.

__________________
Regards
Robert

Smile... it increases your face value!
Linux User #296285

My comment about possibly more shootings, is that when there are more people with guns, you run the possible chance of more unstable carriers.

Again, no where have I mentioned anything to do with banning. Please keep this in mind. I have made no comments on this and will not.