Is there any evidence that this is in fact, a fact? And by “the first sign of any resistance” do you mean instead armed resistance? Whether that would make this assertion more or less factual, well, again I’d like to see some proof to back up the claim.
Effectively, this story shows us that two people that shouldn’t have guns, did have guns and shots were fired and people died. I like to think we’d all be better off if people that shouldn’t have guns couldn’t get guns. I don’t see how “at least this other guy that shouldn’t have had a gun had a gun anyway so justice!” is really the best solution available to us.
I’ll dispute that. I can think of many, many situations and instances in which people would be willing to take multiple lives, even those of complete strangers, and mental illness would have no part in the situation or the decision.
Would you like me to list some of them, or can you see the flaw in your argument already?
So, even though the snippet you pasted said that shots were heard after they saw the patient with his gun pointed at the doc, the case worker was already shot.
If the account is correct, the caseworker was threatened first (then shot) and then the doctor crouched behind the desk and a firefight took place.
Are you asserting that Australians are somehow prevented from using knives, sticks, bats, clubs, fists, teeth, feet, swords and/or daggers in order to defend themselves? Is it your belief that any Australian facing a threat is legally obligated to simply stand there?
Also, as any look at history will show you, an armed populace is worthless in the face of a professional army. There is a reason why most countries facing the US militarily resort to guerrilla tactics. The armed populace can annoy them and kill some here and there to be sure but they can’t win short of making the other side tired of all the bullshit and leaving.
For all that gun owners in the US suggest they protect us from government tyranny they are only fooling themselves.
Do you agree that your assertion that Australians are unable to defend themselves because they lack guns is false? That Australians do in fact have both the right and the means to offer some defense in the face of threats?
Of course they are; you referenced them yourself in the post prior to this one I quoted. People kill other innocent people in wars and military conflicts all the time. Do you need to move your goalposts again?
Then what regulation re you talking about?
Gun bans? Ok what is being banned? You going to ban illegally owned guns?
Regulation? Who are you regulating? Illegally owned guns?
Every time this comes up, the 800 lb gorilla in the room is the fact that most of the time, the people performing the heinous acts shouldn’t or didn’t have access to legally owned guns in the first place.
Mental disorders are a serious component in this yet the people proposing regulation don’t think that’s a necessary first step, why not if not to “grab guns”?
The 1,600 pound gorilla in the room is that when guns are ubiquitous and easily obtained it is trivial for criminals to get their hands on guns. Sure a really committed criminal will probably always be able to get a gun but if they are rare they become expensive so your average street thug likely won’t be able to afford or obtain one.
As my previous example of Australia shows when they seriously restricted guns on a national level there was a marked decrease in gun crimes and suicides.
