The guy is my boyfriend. I'm still at a loss for words. It was stupid.
Neither of my posts mentioned anything about whether I do or do not favor gun
restrictions. Actually, I said he should be denied a gun, having committed a
crime. So yes, I am in favor of some restrictions.But really,
I'm just trying to understand your logic. Please re-read your first post.
You seem to propose that somewhere in this person's past
someone (through clairvoyance or some psychic ability) should have known he
would commit a crime and denied him a gun. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we
could live our lives in the rear view mirror?But now I can see from
your last post that your point is "more gun control laws would have solved
this problem before it happened". It would have kept this guy from getting
a gun and committing the crime, because obviously he is a law abiding citizen.
And this "conversation" would be for naught.It all makes
complete sense to me now...Excuse me while I go garage my car. I
could have an accident. (Sorry, I couldn't help that one.)
All for denying him a gun after he commits a crime?1) If this crime
was murder, someone would be dead.2) As per legal procedure now, he
would still be perfectly legal to buy a gun at a gun show if he purchased them
in cash.Translation: Nothing would have changed as per gun laws
now.So, why are you against gun restrictions if, as they are now,
nothing is being done....?More laws are the solution. Not less.Less guns means less threat. Not more.And more guns as the
solutions to more guns, is like claiming more water...prevents
What? You're making no sense. How can you deny him a gun BEFORE robbing the
credit union? By basing the decision on his brandishing a gun while robbing the
credit union?? I'm all in favor of denying him a gun, having committed a
crime. What is your basis for doing so before the robbery? Maybe all gun
purchases should include a psychic reading? I don't understand your logic
in this instance.
What logic would be used to deny him a gun?How about brandishing one
at a bank robbery! lol.I can go to any gun show and buy a gun in
cash.So, explain to me how denying this man would be a bad thing....
Pagan: Seriously? I'm wondering what basis you would have used for
"denying" him a gun. The article says he brandished a hand gun, not an
assault rifle. And if he wanted to obtain a gun and commit the robbery, I'm
guessing he didn't go ask someone for permission to obtain or use a gun. He
could figure out how to do it, even if he was "denied a gun". Now to the real glaring error of the article. It referred to both incidents as
'bank robberies". Neither was a bank robbery. Both institutions were
credit unions. BIG difference.
If this man was denied a gun...would he have been able to rob this