The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. More lives have been saved when someone is armed and violence occurs. No one reports those incidences.
What I'm not clear on is whether you think that the shooters *should* have been disarmed *before* doing anything wrong, based on *expectations* that they might do something terrible, i.e., whether official assessments of 'mental health' should be sufficient to strip so-far-still-innocent persons of their fundamental rights.
That is, are you saying that the police *should* protect us in this way, but are just too lousy at it to be able to trust them? Or that they *shouldn't* be doing it in the first place?
I think people should be able to shoot him if he shoots at them. I think that someone having hallucinations needs treatment and the last time checked the police are not in that business (and based on the reporting plenty of non-cops could have encouraged it more). If he refused treament and was in fact making actual threats perhaps then perhaps he needs to be detained but that does not infer he must have his property taken - especially if he is nowehre near it. I think there are a list of things that could happen where he is not disarmed which brings me back to point one. He pulls a gun in public with intent he should expect to get shot.
The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. More lives have been saved when someone is armed and violence occurs. No one reports those incidences.
You 2nd Amendment Purist! :^D
What I'm not clear on is whether you think that the shooters *should* have been disarmed *before* doing anything wrong, based on *expectations* that they might do something terrible, i.e., whether official assessments of 'mental health' should be sufficient to strip so-far-still-innocent persons of their fundamental rights.
That is, are you saying that the police *should* protect us in this way, but are just too lousy at it to be able to trust them? Or that they *shouldn't* be doing it in the first place?
I think people should be able to shoot him if he shoots at them. I think that someone having hallucinations needs treatment and the last time checked the police are not in that business (and based on the reporting plenty of non-cops could have encouraged it more). If he refused treament and was in fact making actual threats perhaps then perhaps he needs to be detained but that does not infer he must have his property taken - especially if he is nowehre near it. I think there are a list of things that could happen where he is not disarmed which brings me back to point one. He pulls a gun in public with intent he should expect to get shot.